Hl* 


*>W+F1L 


VV  w.* 


; 


C  J 


Given  by  t-^l^^M 
//^187/ 
Icove    &*&ptf,®J>     f 
Shelf       ^      -Mr-    jf  J 

^7j 


A   COMPLEAT   VIEW   OF 

EPISCOPACY, 

As  exhibited  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Christi- 
an Church,  until  the  Clofe  of  the  Second 
Century  : 

CONTAINING 

An  Impartial  Account  of  them,  of  their  "Writings, 
and  of  what  they  fay  concerning  Bishops  and  Pres- 
byters  j 

WITH    OBSERVATIONS,    AND    REMARKS, 

Tending  to  {hew,  that  they  efteemed  thefe  one  and  the 
same  Order    of  Ecclefiaftical  Officers* 

in     answer 

To  thofe,  who  have  reprefented  it  as  a  certain  fact, 
universally  handed  down,  even  from  the  Apoftles  Days,  that 
governing  and  ordaining  Authority  was  ex- 
ercifed  by  fuch  Bifhops  only,  as  were  of  an  order  supe- 
rior to  Prcibyters. 

By  Charles  Chauncy,D.  D. 

Paftor  of  the  Firft  Church  of  Christ  in  Boston. 


"  I  hope  myReader  will  fee  what  weak  Proofs  are  brought  for 
■  thisDiitinction  andSuperiority  of  Order  [i.  e.  betweenBifhops 
■"  and  Preibyters]*  No  Scripture,  no  primitive  general 'Coun- 
*'  cil,  no  general  Confent  of  primitive  Doctors  and  Fathers,  no, 
"  not  one  primitive  Father  of  Note,  fpeaking  particularly,  and 
"  home,  to  our  purpofe."     Bifhop  Croft's  Naked  Truth,  P.  47* 


BOSTON:  Printed  by  Daniel  Kneeland,   m 
Queen-Street,  for  Thomas  Leverett,  in  Corn-hill. 
m,dcc,lxxi. 


S..** 


111. 


PREFACE 


rHE    materials  for  the  following  work 
were   collected  more   than   twenty  years 
ago,  and  would  then  have  been  put  to- 
gether for  public  ufe,  had  it  not  been  thought 
unfeafonable   ;    as  the   Colonies   were  not,  at 
that  time%  difpofed  to  attend  to  the  ;  epifcopal* 
difpute  :    nor   would  this  have  been  their  in- 
clination at  prefent,  had  it  not  been  excited  hi 
them,  more  ejpecially    by   the  clergy   of  the 
church   of  England,   who,  not  being  fat isfled 
with    having  tranfmitted  petitions    to    their 
fuperiors   at  home,   begging  their  influence  in 
favor    of  the  fettlenunt  of  an  Epifcopate  in 
^America,    deputifed   one  of  their  number   t$ 
write  "  an  appeal  to  the  Public?  citing  objebl- 
trs   to   their   impartial  tribunal  for  tryal  of 
the  weight  of  their  objections,  if  any  they  held 
to  offer,  againft  the  reafonablenefs  cf  their  re- 
fueft*     This  conduct  of  theirs  has  conjlrained 
fXis-  tJbifi 


IV 


PREFACE. 


thofe  of  a  different  perfuafon  to  /peak  in  their 
own  behalf  ;  and  the  rather,  as  it  wasy  in 
a  formal  manner,  given  out,  that,  "  if  nothing 
was  faid  againfl  an  American  Epifcopate,  it 
would  be  taken  for  granted,  all  parties  acqui- 
efcedi  and  were  J  at  is  fed" 


IN  confequence  of  this  extraordinary  chal- 
lenge, that  has  been  faid,  which,  I  believe,  the 
epfcopalians  will  not  find  themjelves  eafily  able 
io  anfwer.  But  there  is  Jlill  room  for  fuch  & 
work  as  that  profeffcs  to  be,  which  is  emitted 
herewith  :  and  it  was  judged  by  many  to  be 
feafonable  at  this  day  ;  more  efpecially,  as  it  has 
been  openly  and  repeatedly  declared,  *  that  it 
is  a  fact  certainly  and  univerfally  handed 
down  by  the  Chriflian  Fathers,  even  from  the 
ear  Heft  days,  that  governing  and  ordain- 
ing authority  was  exercifed  only  by 
Bishops  of  an  order,  in  the  church, 
distinct  from,  and  superior  tq 
Presbyters.' 

HO  W  far  the  above  affirmation  is  agreea- 
ble to  truth,  or  whether  it  will  at  all  confijl 
with  it,  every  man  of  common  widerftanding, 
who  will  be  at  the  pains  to  read  thefubfequent 
pages,  will  be  able,  from  what  he  may  fee  with 
'ibis  own  eyes,  to  judge.      Thofe,  mofl  certainly, 

may 


PREFACE.         v 

may  be  thought  well  qualified  to  form  a  judg^ 
merit  in  this  matter,  who  are  men  of  capacity 
:and learning, though  they  have  had  neither  oppor- 
t unity,  nor  leifure,  to  acquaint  them/elves  with 
the  writings  of  the  ant  lent  Fathers.  It  was 
principally  for  the  fake  of  per  Jons  in  each  of 
thefe  kinds,  whether  epifcopalians,  or  Chriftians 
of  any  other  denomination,  that  the  prefeni 
work  was  engaged  in,  and  made  public.  And 
for  this  reafon  it  was  thought  proper  to  be  more 
particular,  than  would  otherwife  have  been  ne- 
cejjary,  in  giving  an  account,  not  only  of  thefe 
Fathers,  but  of  their  writings  ;  diftinguijhing 
between  thofe  that  have  been  falfely  attribu- 
ted to  them,  and  thofe  that  ??iay  he  efteemed 
truly  genuine  ;  as  alfo  between  thofe  that  are 
pure,  and  thofe  that  have  been  adulterated  with 
corrupt  mixtures.  In  the  doing  of  this,  which 
has  enlarged  the  work,  and  increafed  my  labour, 
1  pretend  to  be  little  more  than  a  collector  -, 
though,  infiead  of  tranfcribing  from  others,  I 
have  ufed  my  own  words,  unlejs  when  I  give 
notice  to  the  contrary :  and  this  Ichofe  to  do,  that 
I  might  be  more  concife,  and  have  it  in  my 
power  to  convey  only  that  to  others,  which  I 
Relieve  contains  the  exacl  truth. 

THE  pajfages  from   the  Fathers,    called 
fipojioliial,   that  is,    the  Fathers  who  may  be 

fuppofed 


vl       V   R    E    F    A    C    E. 

Juppofed  to  have  converfed  with  one,  or  mores 
of  the  apoflles,  I  have  given  in  the  verfion  of 
\Arcb-Biflwp  Wake  ■;  not  fo  much  to  fave  my- 
jelfthe  trouble  of  ,a  tranjl at  ion,  as  to  prevent 
alifufpicion  of  too  high,  pr  too  low,  a  turn  t& 
any  modes  of  zxprefjion,  in  order  to  favor    my 
ownfenfe  of  the  fatl  in  difpute.     I  flwuld  have 
been  glad,  could  I  have  done  the  like  in  regara1 
of  what  is  offered  from  the  other  Fathers.     I 
am  my felf  accountable  for  the  tranflation  of  the 
extracts  from  them  ;   in  which  I  have  not  f§ 
much  fiudied  elegance,  as  ,an  exacl  reprefenta- 
iion  of  their  real  meaning.     I  can  truly  fay,  I 
have,  to  the  befl  of  my  capacity.,  given  the 
whole    that  is  contained  in  the  writings   of 
ihe  Fathers,   within  the  time  fpecifed.     Sure 
I  am,  I  have  willingly  omitted  no  paffage,  or 
word,  that  may  be  found  in  any  of  their  works  ; 
but  have  been  as  free  to  infert  thofe,  epifcopa- 
Hans  would  defire  might  have  a  place  here,  as 
others   they  might  wijh   had  been  kept  out  of 
fght.      It   is  pojjible,  after  all,  there  may  be 
omijjions,  or  mi  flakes,  through  inattention,  for- 
ge tfu  In  efs,  or  fome  Gther  caufe  more  or  I fs  faul- 
ty 5  though  I  am  not  confcious  of  any,  and  be- 
lieve there  are  none  that  are  material.     If  any 
fuch  there  flmild  be,  I  ftould  efleem  it  a  favor 
to  fee  them  cor  reeled.       As  to   thofe  of  f ma  11 
importance,  the  learned  and  judicious,  jhould  they 

obfervc 


PREFACE.        vii 

$bferve  any  fuch,    will  candidly  overlook  and 
excufe  them. 

HAD  there  been  a  fufficiency  of  Greek 
types  in  town,  and  dexterity  to  ufe  them,  more 
of  the  language  in  which  many  pajfages  were 
wrote  would  have  been  printed :  but  this  de- 
fe5l  may  be  thought  pardonable,  as  I  have  all 
along  inferted  fuch  original  words,  though  in 
Englifh  letters,  as  may  be  thought  to  be  of 
importance  in  the  prefent  debate.  I  could  eafly 
have  crowded  the  margin  with  references  to  the 
books,  and  particular  pages  in  them,  I  have 
had  occafon  to  confult ;  but  this,  tofave  room, 
and  a  vainjhew  of  learning,  I  have  omitted  : 
at  the  fame  time,  taking  care  to  name  my  au- 
thors, and  particular  places  in  their  writings 
in  all  injlances  that  have  an  argumentative 
connection  with  any  confiderable  part  of  the 
grand fubjeSl  in  difpute. 

IT  is  hoped,  the  following  work  will  not 
be  altogether  ufelefs.  Much  indeed  has  been  al- 
ready, and  repeatedly,  publijhed  relative  to  the 
Fathers,  and  their  writings ;  and  nothing  more 
frequently  to  be  met  with  than  quotations  from 
them,  infupport  of  the  epifcopal  caufe,  by  thofe 
who  have  appeared  in  its  defence.  But  no 
me,  within  the  compafs  of  my  knowledge,  has 

cqlleftei 


v»i 


PREFACE, 


collected  together y  dnd  brought  to  view,  ALL 
that  they  have  f aid  e xpreffive  of  their  fentiments 
upon  this  head.  This,  if  I  mijiake  not,  was  a 
work  much  needed,  and  may  be  improved  to  good 
purpofe.  The  truth  of  the  fact  in  debate 
may  herefrom  be  brought  to  a  clear  and  full  de^ 
termination. 

IF  any  fhould  complain  of  it  as  a  faulty  that 
I  have  confined  my f elf  within  too  narrow  limits, 
not  going  beyond  the  clofeofthe  fecond  century  5— 
I  would  briefly  fay,  when  we  have  pajfed  thefe 
bounds  we  have  got  into  times y  in  which  there 
was  very  vifebly  a  departure  from  the  purity 
andfimplicity  of  the  gcjpel.  The  man  of  sin 
now  began  to  make  his  appearance,  *  though  it 

was 


*  A  Gentleman  of  learning  beyond  the  Atlantic,  to  whom 
I  had  mentioned  my  confinement  of  the  prefent  view  of 
Epifcopacy  within  the  two  firft  centuries,  exprefTes  himfel'f 
upon  it  in  thefe  words,  "  The  third  and  following  centu- 
ries are  defervedly  to  be  rejected  with  a  kind  of  pious  in- 
dignation in  an  enquiry  of  this  nature.  For  when  Conftan- 
tine  had  deformed  and  corrupted  chriftianity  ;  and  from 
being  "  all  glorious  within,"  had  drefled  up  the  church 
of  Chrift  in  robes  of  external  pomp,  and  made  it  all 
gaudy  without,  and  decked  and  adorned  it  like  the  kingdoms 
of  this  world  ;  no  wonder  that  its  native  modefty  foon  be- 
came tainted  ;  that  it  yielded  to  the  folicitations,  and  had 
criminal  converfation  with  the  princes  of  the  earth  ;  and  by 
degrees  funk  into  that  mother  of  harlots,  which  it 
at  prefent  fhews  itfelf  to  be,  in  almoft  every  part  of  the 
world,  where  it  is  pretended  to  be  eftablifhed  by  theii5-power, 
and  enriched  with  their  wealth." 


M.        < 


PREFACE  is 

Tew  in  a  gradual  way  that  he  attained  to  that 
exaltation  in  dignity  and  power, as  to  be  "  above 
all  that  is  called  god"  Befides,  if  there  are 
no  witnejfesfor  the  firft  two  hundred  years,  or 
inefficient  ones  only*  to  certify  the  truth  of  the 
fatl  in  quejiion,  the  great  argument  in  favor 
of  eplfccpacy,  fetched  from  the  universal 

CONSENT  OF  ALL  AGES  FROM  THE  BEGIN- 
NING of  Christianity,  muft  inevitably  lofe 
its  force.  And  this  is  acknowledged  ly  the  cele- 
brated BiJhopHoadly, who  has  wrote,  as  Ijudge,  in 
the mojlmafterlyway,  upon  thisfde  ofthecontro- 
verjy,  of  any  who  have  handled  it.  Says  he,  *f- 
"  We  do  not  argue  meerly  from  the  tejlimony  of 
"fo  late  writers  as  thefe  [Jerom  and  St.  Au- 
"fin]  that  epifcopacy  is  of  apoftolical  in- 
"fitution.  We  grant  it  doth  not  follow  y  St. 
"  Jerom  thought  fo,  therefore  it  is  fo.  ^  But 
"  writers  of  all  ages  in  the  church  witnefi* 
"  that  this  was  the  government  in  their  days> 
"  that  it  was  inftituted  by  the  apojlles,  and 
<c  delivered  down  as  fuch.  All  that  we^  pro- 
"  duce  St.  Jeromfor  in  this  cafe  is,that  it  was 
"  in  his  time,  and  that  he  believed  it  to  be  apo- 
"folical,  and  received  it  as  fuch  :  but  with- 
"  out  the  teftimony  of  the  ages  before- 

"    HIM 

B 

f   Reafonablenefs  of  conformity  to  the  church  of  England, 
P-   $49- 


x        PREFACE. 

"  him,  I  fhould  not  efteem  this  a  Efficient 
M  argument  that  it  was  really  fo." 

I  SHALL  only  add,  that  I  have  endea- 
voured to  exhibit  the  following  account  of  the 
ancient  epifcopacy,  not  only  with  honefi  impar- 
tiality, but  meeknefs  and  candor,  Jo  as  to  give 
no  jufl  occafion  for  complaint,  that  I  have  wrote 
with  bitternefs,  and  under  the  influence  of  that 
"  wrath  of  man  which  worketh  not  the  rightouf- 
nefs  of  God"       All  I  defire  is,  that  thofe  into 
whofe  hands  this  work  may  fall,  would  read  it 
with  like  impartiality  and  candor  ;    in  which 
caje,  I  may   venture  to  fay,  they  will  be  at  ?io 
lofs  to  determine   on  which  fide  the  truth  lies, 
with  refpefl  to  the  fa£t,  that  is  thefubjecl  in 
debate* 


INTRODUCTION. 


INTRODUCTION. 


IN  ail  difputes  relative  to  gofpel-truth,  the 
demand  is  juft,  "  what  iaith  rhe  fcri-p- 
lure  ?  To  the  law,  and  to  the  teftimony." 
Such  a  demand  is  eminently  proper,  when 
the  point  in  difpute  is  faid  to  be  neail-y  and 
clofcly  conne&ed  with  the  very  being  of 
ehriftianity  itfclf.  The  facred  books  of  the 
new-teftament,  if  at  all  the  rule  of  chriftian 
truth,  mud  be  allowed  to  be  io  in  inftances 
that  are  thus  highly  interefting  and  im- 
poi  tant. 

It  were  to  be  wifhed,  thefe  infpired  books 
had  been  more  generally  honored,  as  the 
only  fufficient  rule  of  judgment,  by  thofe 
who  have  wrote  in  favor  of  episcopacy, 
upon  the  plan  of  a  divine  right  ;  and 
the  rather,  as  they  fpeak  of  it,  not  meerly- 
as  an  inftitution  of  the  gofpel,  but  an  eflcn- 
tially  neceffary  one   :  infomucb,  thai  gof- 

m3- 


ji      INTRODUCTION. 

pel-ordinances  will  be  invalid,  unlefs  admi- 
niftred  by  thofe,  who  have  been  epifcopally 
vefted  with  holy  orders. 

In  a  matter  of  fuch  momentous  concern, 
they  would   not  have  acled   an    unworthy 
parr,  if  they  had  confined  their  pleas  to  the 
facred  writings  ;    producing   fuch  pafifages 
from  them  as  fpeak  to  the  point,  not  im- 
plicitly and  darkly  i  but  in  peremptory  and 
exprefs  terms,  fo  as  to  leave  no  reafonable 
xoom  for  hefitation  or  doubt.     It  would  be 
difhonorary  to  the   bible,  and  a  grofs  re- 
flection on   the  penmen  of  it,    to  call  that 
sn  "'appointment    of  Chrift,"  and  an  M  ef- 
fentially     necefiary"     one,    which     is    not. 
contained  in  this  facred  volume,  and  with 
fuch  clearnefs  and  precifion,  that  fober  and 
impartial  inquirers  may  readily  perceive  it 
to  be  there,  without  foreign  help  to  affift 
their  fight.      And  yet,  fuch  help  is   made 
aieceffary  by  epifcopal-writers.     They  fcarce 
ever   fail    of  turning  us  to  the  Fathers 
in  vindication  of  their  caufe  ;    hereby  vir- 
tually reflecting  difgrace  on  the  fcriptures, 
as  though  they  were  inefficient,  fimply  of 
themfelves,   to   bring    this   controverfy  to 
an  ifiue. 

We 


INTRODUCTION,     ifi 

We  object  not  againft  paying  all  due  re~ 
fpect  to  the  primitive  worthies,  who  were 
called  after  the  name  of  Chrift,  and  ho- 
nored that  name  by  their  faithful  labors 
in  the  fervice  of  the  gofpel.  But  we  re- 
member, our  Savior  has  bid  us  "  call  no 
man  matter  on  earth,"  as  we  have  "  a  rnaf- 
ter  in  heaven,"  the  only  one  he  will  allow 
us  to  own  by  that  name.  We  cannot  there- 
fore but  judge  it  unwarrantable  to  take  our 
fentiments,  relative  to  any  chriftian  truth, 
from  meer  men,  however  pious,  learned, 
or  ancient  ;  or  however  affembled  in  coun- 
cils or  fynods.  This,  we  imagine,  would 
be  a  difhonor  to  Chrift,  the  founder  and 
revealer  of  our  holy  religion.  He  has 
given  us  the  writings  of  the  evangelifts  and 
apoftles  to  be  the  rule  of  our  faith  and 
practice  $  and  it  is,  as  we  think,  fo  perfect 
and  fufficient  an  one,  that  we  have  no  need 
to  have  recourfe  to  human>  and  therefore 
fallible,  writers,  either  ancient  or  modern  ; 
yea,  it  is  our  firm  perfuafion,  that  all  that 
is  delivered  for  "  the  truth  as  it  is  hi  Je- 
fus"  by  the  fathers  of  whatever  age, 
ftation,  country,  or  character,  ought  to  be 
judged  of  by  this  facred  and  unerring  rule  : 
and  if  what  they  fay  does  not  agree  here- 
with, there  is,  fo  far,  no  light  nor  truth  in 
them.  Int 


fir     INTRODUG  T  I  D  N. 

In  order  to  reconcile  the  appeal  that  is 
(o  often  made  to  the  Fathers  with  that 
honor  which  is  due  to  the  fcrip.tures,theepif- 
copalian-plea   is,  that  they    confider  thefe 
fathers,  not  as  judges,  but  .ivitnefles  only  in 
their  caufe.      But  what  are  they  brought 
to  witnefs  ?  Is   it,    ,that  epifcopacy   is   an 
inftitution    of   Jefus   ChriA   ?     If  this    is 
witnefled  to  in  the  facrcd  books,  of  which 
we,  having  thefe  in  our  hands,  are  as  good 
judges  as  they,  it  is  fufficient.     There  is  no 
need  of  any  foreign  teftimony.     If  it  is  nor, 
no  other  teflimony  can  fupply  this  defeft. 
Are  thefe  fathers  cited  as  witneffes  to  what 
was  the  practice  in  their  day  ?    This  is 
now  generally  the   pretence,      They  may, 
fay  the  epifcopalians,  be  properly  appealed 
to,  in  order*  to  know  the  truth  of  fact  in 
the  ages  in  which  they  lived.      And  if, from 
tfteir  unanimous  tefHmony,  even  from  the 
firft  days  of  chriftianity,  it  appears,  that  go- 
verning    and     ORDAINING      AUTHORITY 

was  exercifed  by  Bishops  only,  in  diftinc- 
tion  from  Prefbyters,  and  as  an  order  in  the 
the  church  above  them,  it  would  argue  great 
arrogance,  if  not  obftinate  perverienefs,  to 
difputc  the  divine  original  of  epifcopacy. 
But  we  muft  be  excufed,  however  perverfe 
we  may  be  accounted,  if  we  cannot  bring 

our 


INTRODUCTION,     v 

our  felves  to  think,  that  the  pra£Hce  of  the 
church,   fince  the  apoftles    days,  however 
univerfal,  will  juftify  our  receiving  that  as 
an  inftitution  of  Chrift,  and  an  eflentially 
important  one,  which  he  himfelf  hath  not 
clearly  and  evidently  made  fo,  either  in  bis 
own   perfon,  or  by  thofe  infpired   writers, 
whom  he  commiffioned   and  inftru£ted  to 
declare  his  will  :   nor  can  we  believe,   the 
great  author  of  chriftianity  would  have  put 
the  profeflbrs  of  it  to  the  difficult,  1   may 
fay,  as  to  moft  of  them,  the  impoffible  tafk 
of  colledting  any  thing  eflential  to  their  fal- 
vation  from  the  voluminous  records  of  an- 
tiquity.    We  are  rather  perfuaded,  he  has 
ordered  every  article  that  is  necefTary,  either 
in  point  of  faith  or  pradtice,  to  be  fo  fairly 
and  legibly  wrote  by  the  facred  penmen,  as 
thatthereftiouldbenoneedof  having  recourfe 
to  the  ancient  Fathers  as  witnesses,    any 
more  than  judges,  toafcertainhis  mind.    To 
fuppofe  the  contrary,  would,  in  reality  of 
conftru&ion,  fubftitue  tradition  the  rule 
of  eflential  truth,  in  the  room  of  the  scrip- 
tures, which  were  "  given  by  infpiration 
of  God  ;"  or,  at  leaft,  make  the  former  fo 
much  a  part  of  this  rule,  as  that  the  latter, 
withoutit,  would  not  befufficiently  compleat. 
Such  difhonor  ought   not  to  be  caft  on 

the 


n     INTRODUCTION. 

the  one  only  ftandard  of  the  real  mind  of 
Chrift. 

Not  that  we  fliould  be  under  any  fear- 
ful apprehenfion,  was  the  epifcopal-difpute 
to  be  decided  solely  by  what  can  be  prov- 
ed to  be  fact,  refpedting  the  pradtice  of 
the  church  before  the  coming  on  of  thofe 
ages,  in  which  it  is  known  that  fuperftition 
and   corruption   had  unhappily  got  mixed 
with  moft,  if  not  all  the  appointments  of 
Jefus    Chrift.      It   has    indeed    been    long 
given  out,  and  of  late  with  more  pofitive  af- 
furance  than  common,  that  within  the  two 
firft  centuries,  thofe  purefl.  and  truly  primi- 
tive ones,  and  all  along  through  them,  as 
well  as  in  after  ages,  universal  consent 
is  juftly  pleadable  in   favor  of  epifcopacy. 
The  defign  of  the  enfuing  work  is  to  put  it 
in  the  power  of  ail  intelligent  readers,  whe- 
ther learned  or  unlearned,  to  judge  for  them- 
felves  in  this  matter  ;  and  that  they  might 
be  able  to  do  it  upon  juftand  folid grounds, 
not  here  and  there  adetached  testimony,  from 
this  and  the  other  feletled  father,  is  brought 
to  view,  but  the  whole,  until  towards   the 
clofe  of  the  fecond  century*  they  have  all 
faid  relative  to  the  affair  of  Bifhops.     If  the 
confent  of  the  church,  through  this  long 

and 


INTRODUCTION,     vii 

and  important  period,  without  which  it  is 
impoffible  it  fhould  be  universal,  can  be 
known  at  all,  it  may  be  known  in  this  way  ; 
and  it  is  the  only  one  in  which  it  can  be 
known  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  The 
difpute  about  epifcopacy,fo  far  as  it  depends 
upon  universal  consent,  may  be  fairly 
and  fully  determined  by  every  one  for  himfelf, 
by  what  is  herewith  offered  to  his  perufal. 

The  method,  according  to  which  I  pro- 
pofe  to  proceed,  is  this  eafy  and  plain  one. 
The  fathers  will  be  diftin&ly  mentioned 
one  by  one,  their  characters  given,  their  writ- 
ings fpecified,  and  what  they  fay  relative 
to  episcopacy  faithfully  fet  down,  with 
f'uch  obfervations  and  remarks  as  may  be 
thought  needful.  And  they  will  feverally 
be  brought  to  view  in  the  order  in  which 
they  are  commonly  placed,  by  the  learned 
in  fubjeffs  of  this  nature  ;  or,  in  other 
words,  according  to  the  time,  in  which  it  is 
fuppofed  they  wrote.  * 

C  Only, 

*  It  may  be  proper  to  give  notice  to  the  reader,  that,  in  fpeci- 
fying  the  date  of  the  refpeclive  writings,  from  which  J  have 
extracted,  I  have  only  referred  in  general  to  the  opinion  of 
■  others,  verfed  in  this  kind  of  learning.  It  would  have  re- 
quired a  volume  of  itfelf,  to  have  fixed  the  moft  probable 
date  of  each  writing,  and  to  have  afligned  the  reafons,  why 
this  date,  rather,  than  arty  other  was  pitched  upon  ;  which 
would  have  been  a  needlefs  labour  to  rae,  and  of  no  Lenefit 
to  the  reader,  in  the  prefen:  cafe. 


viii    INTRODUCTION, 

Only,  before  I  proceed,  T  would  make 
the  following  reafonable  lequert.  It  is,  that 
every  one  would  keep  critically  in  view,  as 
he  goes  along,  the  specified  fact  in  dif- 
pute.  And  that  he  may  be  able  to  do  this 
without  miftake,  I  fhall,  in  a  few  words, 
diftincrly  point  it  out. 

The  Bifhop,  in  whofe  defence  an  appeal 
is  made  to  antiquity,  is  not  related,  by  his 
office,  to  a  fingle  congregation  of  chriftians 
only,  with  one  or  more  Prefbyters  belong- 
ing to  it  j  but  his  charge  is  sdiocess,  con- 
fiding of  a  number  of  congregations,  great- 
er or  lefs,  with  their  refpecrivc  Prefbyters. 
The  inquiry  therefore  is,  whether  it  be  an  u  n  i- 

VERSALLY    ATTESTED   FACT,    that    epifco- 

pacy,  in  this  fenfe,  took  place  in,  and  through, 
the  two  firft  ages  ?  A  Bifhop,  at  the  head 
of  a  number  of  congregations,  greater  or 
lefs,  is  an  officer  in  the  church  of  Chrift 
quite  different  from  the  paftor  of  a  fingle 
congregation  ;  though  he  fhould  be  called 
Bifhop,  as  being  the  Head-Presbyter,  or 
vefted  with  the  character  of  primus  inter 
pares.  It  ihould  be  particularly  noted, 
which  of  thefe  kinds  of  epifcopacy  has  the 
voice  of  the  fpecified  antiquity  in  its  favor. 
It  is  willingly  left  with  every  man  of  com- 
mon 


INTRODUCTION, 


1$ 


mon  underftanding,afterhehasgone  over  the 
following  teftimonies,  to  fay,  whether  he 
thinks,thatBifhops,aftertheDiocESANxMODE, 
were  known  in  the  firft  ages  of  the  church  ? 

The  Bifhop,  for  whom  the  fathers  are 
called  in  as  witnesses,  is  an  officer  in  the 
church  of  an  order  superior  to  that  of 
Prefbyters,  and  as  diftinct  from  it  as  the  or- 
der of  Prefbyters  is  fe*  that  of  Deacons  -,  jm 
the  pretence  being  this,  that  Prefbyters  were 
thought  to  have,  in  primitive  times,  no  more 
right  to  meddle  with  the  peculiar  work  of 
Bifhops,  than  Deacons  have  to  concern 
themfelves  with  the  peculiar  work  of  Pref- 
byters. The  queftion  therefore  is,  Whe- 
ther it  will  appear,  from  the  following  evi- 
dence, to  be  at  all  a  fact,  much  lefs  an 
universally  known,  and  certainly  atteft- 
ed  one,  that  there  were  BiChops,  in  this 
fcnfe,  in  any  church,  in  any  pait  of  the 
chriftian  world,  within  the  two  firft  cen- 
turies ? 

The  Bifhop,  in  whofe  favor  the  ancient 
Fathers  are  faid  univerfally  to  fpeak,  is  one 
to  whom  the  exclusive  right  of  go- 
vernment has  been  committed  by  the 
appointment  of  Jefus  Chrift,  or  his  apoftles 

as 


x      INTRODUC  T  I  O  N, 

as  commiffioned  by  him.  Says  the  famous 
Bifhop  Hoadly,  treating  of  the  government 
of  the  church,  as  belonging  to  Biftiops  only, 
in  the  above  appropriated  fenfe,  *  "  And 
"  here— -I  think  I  may  fay,  that  we  have  as 
"  univerfal  and  as  unanimous  a  teftimonv 
iC  of  all  writers,  and  hiftorians  from  the 
€i  apoftles  days,  as  could  reafonably  be  ex- 
*i  peeled  ordefired  :  every  one,  who  fpeaks 
*f  of  the  government  of  the  church,  in  any 
"  place,  witne.ffing,  that  epifcopacy  was  the 
"  fettled  form  ;  and  every  one,  who  hath 
"  occafion  to  fpeak  of  the  original  of  it, 
<c  tracing  it  up  to  the  apoftles  days,  and 
"  fixing  it  upon  their  decree.— -W.er.e  there 
"  only  teftimonies  to  be  produced,  that  this 
"  was  the  government  of  the  church  in  all 
u  ages,  it  would  be  but  reafonable  to  con- 
"  elude  it  of  apoftolical  inftitiition  j— but 
ff  when  we  find  the  fame  performs  witnefiing, 
not  only  that  it  was  epifcopal,  but  that  it 
was  of  apoftolical  inftitution,  anddeliver- 
'*  ed  down  from  the  beginning  as  fuch* 
"  this  adds  weight  to  the  matter,  and  makes 
€t  it  more  undoubted.  So  that  here  are  two 
"  points  to  which  they  bear  wimefs,  that 
"  this  was  the  government  of  the  church 

in 

f  Reafonablenefs  of  conformity  to  the  church   of  England, 
i  -p.    326,  327. 


4( 


INTRODUCTION,     xi 

<"  in  their  days,  and  that  it  was  of  apofto- 
M  lical  inftitution.  And  in  theft  there  is 
-fi  fuch  a  conftancy  and  unanimity,  that  even 
*'  St.  Jerom  himfelf  traces  up  epifcopacy 
8  to  the  very  apcftles,  and  makes  it  of  their 
H  inftitution. "— He  adds,  "  All  churches 
"  and  chriftians,  as  far  as  we  know,  feem 
'?*  to  have  been  agreed,  in  this  point,  amidft 
*«  all  their  other  differences,  as  univerfally 
**  as  can  well  be  imagined."  One  would 
fuppofe,  from  the  peremptory  manner  in 
which  this  citation  is  exprefled,  that  the 
fact  it  affirms  was  fo  evidently  clear,  as 
to  leave  no  room  for  the  leaftdoubt.  Thofe, 
who  may  think  it  worth  while  to  look  over 
the  tejlimonies  brought  to  view,  in  the  fol- 
lowing pages,  will  perhaps,  by  critically  ob- 
ferving  their  real  and  juft  import,  be  fur- 
prized,  that  any  man  of  learning,  who  pro- 
fefles  a  regard  to  truth,  fhould  fpeak  of  it, 
and  with  fuch  a  degree  of  affbrance,  as  the 

UNIVERSAL    DECLARATION  OF    ALL    AGES 

from  the  apoftles,  that  epifcopacy,  in  the 
impleaded  fenfe,  was  the  «  form  of  go- 
vernment in  the  church  in  their  day,"  and 
that  it  was  by  "apoftolical inftitution  ;"efpe- 
cially,  if  they  fhould  not  be  able  to  find, 
as  it  is  certain  they  will  not,  fo  much  a% 
a   fingle  witnefs,   for  two  hundred  years, 

'  whofe 


xii    INTRODUCTION. 

whofe  evidence  is  clear,  direft,  exprefs,  and 
full,  in  affirming,  either  that  this  was  the 
form  of  government  in  the  church,  or  that 
it  was  ever  inftituted  by  Chrift,  or  his  aof- 
tles  :   fo  far  is  it  from  the  truth,  that  this  is 

a     FACT    UNANIMOUSLY  and  CONSTANTLY 

testified  to,  even  from  the  beginning, 
and  through  all  ages. 

The  Biffyop,  for  the  fupport  of  whofe 
claims  antiquity  is  repaired  to,  is  one  with 
whom  the  sole  power  of  ordination  is 
lodged  ;  infomuch,  that  he  only  can  con- 
vey holy  orders  conformably  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  Jefus  Chrift  ;  and  fhould  Prefbyters 
prefume  to  do  this,  they  would  take  that 
upon  them  which  they  have  no  more  a  right 
to,  than  Deacons  have  to  baptife,  or  admi- 
nifter  the  Lord's  fupper.  This  part  of  the 
unanimous  report  of  all  ages  concern- 
ing the  exclusive  right  of  Bifhops  de- 
fences moft  of  all  the  fpecial  notice  of  the 
reader  ;  and  he  is  particularly  defired,  as  he 
goes  along,  to  point  out  to  himfelf,  for  his 
own  fatisfaftion  ;  or  to  others,  for  theirin- 
formation,  any  one  among  all  the  tefti- 
monies  he  will  have  placed  before  his  view, 
thatplainly  and  direftly  affirms  the  right 
or  ordination  to  be  peculiar  to  Bifhops 
as  adiftinft  order  from  Prefbyters,  and  fuperi- 
or  to  them  i  or  that  this  right  was  ever  thus  ex- 

ercifed 


INTRODUCTION,    xiii 

ercifedby  them.  If  hefhould  not  be  able  to 
do  this,  as  unqueftionably  he  will  not,  how 
ftrange  muft  that  affirmation  appear,  which 
fays,  in  the  moft  pofitive  terms,  not  only  that 
this  is  fact,  but  a  fa&  constantly  and 
unanimously  witnefled  to  by  the  fathers,in 
all  ages  from  the  days  of  the  apoftles. 

The  Bifhop,  in  whofe  defence  antiquity 
is  pleaded,  is  vefted  with  the  power  of  con- 
firmation, according  to  the  mode  of  the 
church  of  England  ;  and  it  is  appropriated 
to  him  as  his  right  in  diftin<5tion  from  all 
others.  But  I  need  not  afiure  the  reader, 
he  will  in  vain  look  to  find  it  a  fact,  with- 
in the  two  firft  ages,  that  Bilhops  were  ei- 
ther vefted  with,  or  ever  exercifed  this  pow- 
er. For  he  muft  come  down  below  thefe 
agfes,  before  a  word  is  faid,by  any  one  of  the 
fathers,  relative  to  this  fuperftitious  practice. 
Tertullian  is  the  firft  that  mentions  it  -,  and 
he  mentions  likewife  fome  other  corrup- 
tions, which  had  got  mingled  with  chrifti- 
anity  in  that  day. 

In  fhort,  the  queftion  in  debate,  fo  far 
as  it  relates  to  fact,  is,  not  whether 
there  were  officers  in  the  chriftian  church, 
known  by  the  name  of  Bifhops  in  the  apo- 
ftolic  age,  and  down  along  through  the  two 
firft  centuries  ?  We  join  with  the  epifcopa- 

lians 


i6       BARNABAl 

cd  in  the  new-teftament-books,  which 
every  one  is  at  liberty  to  confult  at  his 
leifure.  If  he  was  not  this  Barnabas,  we 
can  know  nothing  about  him,  with  any 
degree  of  certainty,  bat  what  may  be  col- 
led ed  from  the  epiftle  that  goes  under 
this  name* 

I  shall  not  amufe  the  reader  with 
the  hiftory  of  his  fuppofed  fufFerings,  as 
a  martyr  for  the  caufe  of  Chrift  j  much 
Jefs  with  the  mirabilia  that  are  told  of 
him,  and  with  an  air  of  top  much  faith, 
even  by  Arch-Bifhop  Wake,  as  well  as 
Dr.  Cave.  For>  to  fpeak  the  truth,  I  pay 
no  regard  to  the  idle  legendary  ftories, 
invented  by  monks,  and  other  ecclefiaftics, 
in  the  Roman  church,  after  the  vifiblc 
rife  of  anti-chrift,  to  impofe  upon  the 
people  to  ferve  their  own  bafe  and  wick- 
ed defignsi 

Leaving  therefore  thefe  extraordiiia- 
ries,  as  not  worthy  of  notice,  I  go  on  to 
fpeak  of  his  works.  Tertullian  leems  to 
have  been  of  the  opinion,  that  he  was 
the  authbr  of  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews  ; 
for  he  plainly  quotes  it  as  his  :  but  it  is, 
Svith  Jerom,  a  matter  of  doubt,  whether  it 

ought 


BARNABAS.         iV 

pught  to  be  afcribed  to  him,  or  Luke,  or 
Clement,  or  Paul'/    It  does  not  appear, 
that  Barnabas  yytbte  any  thing  more  th^n 
an  epiftle  that  is  ftill  extant,  at  leaft   m 
part,  both  in  greek  and  latin.    The  la- 
tin is  thought  to  be  a  very  ancient  yet- 
fion  from  the  greek  ;    though,  when,  in 
what  country,  or  by  what  hand,  it   was 
tfanflated,  none, fo  far  as  lean,  learn,  pre- 
tend fo  much  as  to  conjecture.     Neither' 
the  greek  or   latin   copies    are     perfect. 
The  beginning  is  wsntijjg  in  the  greek, 
aftdf  the^end  in  the  Latiri.  *     Or.   CaVe, 
who  was  apt  to  entertain  as  high  an  opi- 
nion of  ancient  writings  as  they  deferve, 
defcribes  the  epiftle  of  Barnabas  iri   the 
following  words.     "  The  frame  and  con-' 
m  texture  of  it  is  intricate  and  obicure, 
"  made  up  of  uncouth  Allegories,  forced 
"  and  improbable  interpretations  of  fcrirj- 
"  ture  ;  though  the  main  defign  of  it  1$ 
"  to  fliew,  that  the  chriftian  religion  \m 

*  fuperfeded 
feJf      ■  * 

•  Dr.  Lardener  fays  of  this  epiftle,-  "It  is  entire  in  the  la-' 
tin  verlion."  Cotelerius  declare^;  the  contrary.  Hjs 
words  are  thefe,  "  Vetus  antem  interpretatio  eft  imper- 
fecta et  mtJtila,"  turn  paflRta,  turn  precipue  ad  finenl,  ubl 
pofteriora  capita  refecantur.;i  The.exad  truth  is,  neither 
the  greek  or  old  latin  copies  are  complete  ;  but  as  the 
latin  contains  what  was  wanting  in  the  greek,  and  the 
.  greek,  what  was  wanting  in  the  latin,  between  them  bo# 
the  epiftle  js  made  entire.  jJLj     // 

&f.  J^jr  #<$-  *-~  n°c  ■         fir.  J. 


i8       BARNABAS, 

"  fuperfeded  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
(i  the  Mofaic  law.  The  latter  part  of  it 
"  contains  an  ufeful  and  excellent  ex- 
4i  hortation,  managed  under  the  notion 
tf<  of  two  ways  ;  the  one  of  light,  the 
c\  other  of  daiknefs  ;  the  one  under  the 
**  guidance  of  the  angels  of  God,  the 
**.  other  under  the  conduct  of  the  angels 
*\  oi  fatan,  the  prince  of  the  iniquity 
«,cf  the  age/5 

'.The  chief  difficulty,  relative  to    this  # 
cpiftle,.  is   to  know,  whether   the  fcrip- 
ture-Barnabas  was  its  author,  or  Tome, 
other  perfon,  really  of  thisname,or  by  ar- 
bitrary affumption. 

.  Some  of  the  ancient  Fathers  feern  to 
have  been  of  the  mind,  tha*  the  Barna- 
bas, who  was  Paul's  companion,  was 
the  writer  of  it.  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria quotas  it  in  that  form,  "  fays  the 
apoftle  Barnabas."  Origin,  in  his  anf- 
wer  to  Celfus,.  gives  this  epillle  the  title 
of  catholic,  "  the  catholic  epiftle  of  Bar- 
nabas $'  which  it  is  fuppofed  he 
would  not  have  done,  had  he  notefteem- 
ed  its  author  to  have  been  tlie  Barnabas, 

wnoie 


-\    x-V.iV.   \ 


-3      ,      ,      v    s~\v.  Ak  .    \    v.     ; 


lf\  ..    v         .     ,»-    »      * 


BARNABAS.         19 

whofe  memory  is  celebrated  in  the  infpired 
writings.  Others,  among  the  fathers, 
to  fay  the  leaft,  were  in  doubt,  whether 
this  epiftle  was  wrote  by  Barnabas,  who, 
with  Paul,  was  "  feparated  to  the  work, 
whereunto  the  Holy  Ghoft  had  called 
them."  Eufebius  and  jerom  both  reck- 
on it  among  the  "  apocryphal  books  ;" 
and  doubtlefs  for  the  fame  reafon.  What 
this  is,,  we  may  learn  from  the  epiftle  of 
the  latter  of  thefe  fathers  to  Lseta,  in 
which  he  fays,  "  Thofe  books  are  apo- 
cryphal that  do  not  belong  to  the  authors 
whofe  name,  they  bear." 

The  moderns  differ  likewife  in  their 
judgment,  Pearfon,  Cave,  Du-pin,  Wake, 
and  others,  fuppofe  the  fcripture-Barna- 
bas  to  have  been  the  writer  of  this  epi- 
ftle.  Cotelerius  rather  thinks  it  was  fome 
other  perfon  *  of  this  name,  or  that 
appeared    under  itv+      Others  are    of 

opinion 

*  *'  —  magis  inclino  ut  cenfeam,  non  effe  apoftoli." 
And  again,  «*  Certe  vix  credi  poteft,  quod  adeo  eximi- 
us  apoftolus--ea  fcripferit  quae  in  opufculo  prefenti  con- 
tinentur  ;  coaCtas  dico  allegbjias,  enarrationes  fcriptura- 
rum  minus  verifimiles,  fabulas  de  animalibus,  aliaque."— 

f  It  may  feem  Grange  to  many,  that  writers,  in  the  firft 

ages 


go       BARNABA  S? 

opinion,  it  is  Utterly  unworthy  of  io  ex- 
cellent a  man  as  the  Barnabas  celebrated 
in  the  infpired  books.  Bafnage  and 
Jones  have  largely  offered  their  objections 
againfl  this  epiftle  as  the  genuine  work 
of  Barnabas,  the  companion  of  Paul. 
And  they  appear  to  me,  1  truly  confefs, 
to  be  unanfwerable.  It  would  carry 
irie  too  far  out  of  my  way  to  give  fo  much 
as  an  abftraft  of  thefe  objections,  I  (hall 
content  myfelf  with  only  tranfcribing  a 
few  paffages  in  this  epiftle,  as  tranflated 
by  Arch-Bifhop  Wake  $  leaving  it  with 
every  judicious  reader  to  fay,  whether  he 
can  think  it  at,  all  probable,  that  fuch  a 
man  as  the  fcripture-Barnabas  is  known 
to  have  been,  could  have  been  the  author 

oi 

ages  of  chriftfanity,  mould  appear,  not  under  their  own, 
but  the  names  of  thofe  who  were  in  high  reputation  in 
their  day.  But  the  facl  is  inconteftibly  true*  Says  the 
learned  Dr.  Cave,  "  If  itfhall  be  inquired,  why  a  man, 
after  much  pains,  mould  chufe  to  publilh  his  labors  rather 
under  another  man's  name  than  his  own  ;  there  needs  no 
Ptber  anfwer,  than  that  this  has  been  an  old  trade,  which 
fome  men  have  taken  up,either  becaufe  it  was  their  humour 
to  lay  their  own  children  at  other  men's  doors, or  to  decline 
the  cenfure  which  the  notions  they  published  were  like- 
ly, to  expofe  them  to,  or  principally  to  conciliate  the 
grenter  efteem  and  value  for  them,  by  thrufting  them 
forth  under  the  name  of  thofe  for  whom  the  world  have 
a  juft  Tegard  and  veneration."  Lives  of  the  fathers,  p, 
7$i  vol.  I  ft. 


BARNABAS,         at 

of  them ;  a  convert  to  the  faith  in  the 
days  of  Chrift  ;  one  perfonally  acquaint- 
ed with  the  apoftles  ;  a  fellow-Jaborer 
with  them,  by  the  exprefs  appointment  of 
heaven,  in  fpreading  the  name  and  reli- 
gion of  Chrift  ;  and,  in  a  word,  one  that 
is  chara&erifed  by  an  infpired  pen  as  "  a 
good  man,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and 
of  faith."  A6ts  xi.  24, 

The  paflages,  I  would  bring  to  view, 
are  thefe  that  follow. 

Sect.  V.~- «  And  when  he  chofe  his 
apoftles,  which  were  afterwards  to  pub- 
lifh  his  gofpel,  he  took  men  that  had  been 
very  great  sinners;  that  thereby  h$ 
might  plainly  fhew,  "  he  came  not  to  call 
the  righteous,  hut  finners  to  repentance." 

This  pafTage>  in  the  Arch-Bifhop's 
tranflation,  may  not  appear  very  {taking- 
ly exceptionable  ;  but  it  really  is  fo,  both 
in  the  original  greek,,  and  old  latin  verfi- 
on.  What  he  tranflates,  "  men  that 
had  been  very  great  finners,"  is  in  the 
greek,  uper  pafan  amartian  anomoterous  *, 
juftly  tranflated  by  Cotelerius,  "  omni 
|>eccato  iniquiores,"    The  old  lattin  ver~ 

iipn 


/ 


22        BARNABAS. 

fion  has  it,  "  fuper  omne  peccaturci,  pec-* 
catores  f  in  literal  englifh,  "  finners  be- 
yond all  fin."  It  is  readily  allowed,  the 
mode  of  diftion  is  hyperbolical.  But  the 
thought  intended  to  be  conveyed  could  be 
nothing  fhort  of  this,  that  the  apoftles  of 
oiir  Lord  had  been  "  the  worft  of  men, 
the  vilefl  of  all  Tinners."  Is  this  the  truth 
of  fa£t  ?  Will  any  thing,  in  the  new-tefta- 
ment-books,juftify  this  account  of  them  ? 
It  is  a  falfe  flanderous  report,  *  highly 
injurious  to  them  :  nor  is  the  reafon  af- 
figned  for  our  Lord's  chufing  fuch  wick- 
ed men  any  other  than  an  abufe  of  tne 
facred  text  mentioned  in  its  fupport.  No 
fuch  reafon  was  ever  given  by  our  Lord, 
or  any  of  his  infpired  apoftles. 

Sect.  IX. — "  Understand  therefore, 
children,  thefe  things  more  fully,  that 
Abraham,  who  was  the  firft  that  brought 
in  circumcifion,  looking  forward  in  the 
fpirit  to  Jefus,  circumciled;  having  receiv- 
ed 

*  Cotelerlus,  in  his  note  upon  this  pafTage,  cites  the  follow- 
ing words,  from  Origen's  firft  book  againft  Celfus,  to- 
wards the  end,  ■  extat  fane  in  Bafnab*  Catholica  epi- 
ftola  fcriptum.  Inde  fortaffe  Celfus  occaiionem  arri- 
puit,.ut.apoftolos  infames  et  nequiifimos  diceret. Jefum 
adapoftolicam  functionem  elegiiTe  homines  omni  miqul* 
tare  neqiiiflinaofcr" 


BARNABAS.       23 

ed  the  myftery  of  three  letters.  For 
the  fcripture  fays,  "Abraham  circumcifed 

THREE   HUNDRED    AND    EIGHTEEN    mea 

of  his  houfe."  But  what  therefore  was 
the  rnyftery  that  was  made  known  to 
him  ?  Mark,  firft  the  eighteen  ;  and 
next  the  three  hundred.  For  the 
numeral  letters  of  ten  and  eight  are 
I.H  ;  and  thefe  denote  Jesus.  And 
becaufe  the  gross  was  that  by  which  wc 
were  to  find  grace,  therefore  he  adds, 
three  hundred,  the  note  of  which  is  T 
[the  figure  of  his  crofsj.  Wherefore,  by 
two  letters,  he  fignified  Jesus,  and  by  the- 
third  his  cross.  He  who  has  put  the 
engrafted  gift  of  his  doctrine  within  us 
knows,  that  I  never  taught  to  any  one  a 
more  certain  truth  :  but  I  truft  that  ye 
are  worthy  of  it." 

Sect.  X.  «*  But  why  did  Mofes  fay, 
"  Ye  fhall  not  eat  of  the  fwine,  neither 
the  eagle,nor  the  hawk,  nor  the  crow,  nor 
any  fi(h  that  has  not  a  fcale  upon  him  V* 
I  anfwer,  that,  in  the  fpi ritual  fen fe,  he 
comprehended  three  doclrines  that  were 
to  be  gathered  from  thence.  Befides 
which  he  fays  to  them  in  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy,  "  and  I  will  give  my  fta- 

E  tutes 


24       BARNAB  A  S. 

tufes  unto  this  people,'*  Wherefore,  it 
is  not  the  command  of  God  that  they 
fhould  not  eat  thefe  things  ■,  but  Mofesin 
the  fpirit  fpake  to  them.  Now,  "  the 
fow  hr  forbad  them  to  eat";  meaning  thus 
much,  thou  {halt  not  join  thyfelf  to  iuch 
perfons  as  are  like  unto  fwine.---"  Nei- 
ther fiialt  thou  eat  of  the  hare."  To 
what  end  ?  To  fignify  this  to  us,  thou 
fnaltnot  be  an  adulterer,  nor  liken  thy- 
felf  to  fuch  perfons.  For  the  hare  eve- 
ry year  multiplies  the  places  of  its  concep- 
tion ;  and  as  many  years  as  it  lives,  fo 
many  it  has.  "  Neither  fhalt  thou  eat 
of  the  hysna  y  that  is,  again,  be  not  an 
adulterer,  nor  a  corrupter  of  others,  nei- 
ther be  like  unto  fuch.  And  wherefore 
fo  ?  Becaufe  that  creature  every  year 
changes  its  kind,  and  is  fometimes  male, 
and  fometimes  female.  For  which  caufe 
alfo  he  juftly  hated  the  weefel ;  to  the  end 
they  fhould  not  be  like  fuch  perfons, 
who  with  their  mouths  commit  wicked- 
nefs,  by  rcafon  of  their  uncleannefs  ;  nor 
join  themfelves  with  thofe  impure  wo- 
men, who  with  their  mouths  commit 
wickednefs  ;  becaufe  that  animal  con- 
ceives with  its  mouth."  Mofes  therefore 
fpeaking  as  concerning  meats,  delivered 

indeed' 


BARNABAS.       it 


-3 


indeed  three  great  precepts  to  them  in  the 
Spiritual  fignification  of  thofe  commands. 
But  they,acco;  ding  to  the  defires  of  theflefh, 
understood  him  as  i(  he  had  only  meant  it  of 
meats.  And  therefore  David  took  aright 
the  knowledge  of  his  threefold  command, 
faying  in  like  manner;  \*  blefled  is  the 
man  that  hath  not  walked  in  the  court- 
fel  of  the  ungodly  y  as  the  fifhes  before 
mentioned  in  the  bottom  of  the  deep  in 
darknefs  :  "  nor  ftood  in  the  way  of 
finners  ;"  as  they  who  feem  to  fear  the 
Lord,  but  yet  fin  as  the  fow.  "  And 
hath  not  fat  in  the  feat  of  the  fcorners  ;" 
as  thofe  birds  who  fit  and  watch  that  they 
may  devour.  Here  you  have  the  law 
concerning  meat  perfectly  fet  forth,  and 
according  to  the  true  knowledge  of  it. 

These  paffages  are  only  a  very  fmall 
part  of  thofe,  in  which  the  features  are 
placed,  in  this  epiftle,  in  a  moftludicrous 
point  ot  light.  It  is,  as  I  imagine,  be- 
yond the  power  of  man  to  reconcile  fuch 
trifling,  uncouth,  romantic  explications 
of  the  holy  word  of  God,  with  the  excel- 
lent character  it  has  given  us  of  the  apof- 
tolic-Barnabas. 

I  shall  onlv  add, no  mention  is  made, 
in  this  epiiik,  of  Bifnops,  or  Prefhyters  ; 

nor 


26       BARNABAS. 

nor  the  lead  hint  given,  from  whence  it 
may  be  colle&ed,  what  was  this  writer's 
opinion  about  either  of  them.  Both 
the  greek  and  latin  copies  are  abfolutely 
fuent  with  reference  to  every  thing  con- 
troverted between  the  epifcopalians  and 
preibyterians  ;  for  which  reafon  I  have 
laid  lefs  of  this  primitive  writer,  than 
might  otherwife  have  been  proper.  I 
fhall  obferye  the  fame  rule,  refpefling 
tjiofe  other  fathers,  whofe  writings  have 
not  reached  us,  or  contain  nothing  in 
them  to  the  purpofe  of  the  argument  we 
are  upon. 


DIONYSIUS 


DIONYSIUS  AREOPAGITA. 


THIS  Dionyfius  is  ftiled  the  areopa- 
gite,  partly  to  diftinguifh  him  from 
feyeral-  others  of  the  fame  name  ;  but 
principally  becaufeheis  thus  pointed  out  by 
theinfpired  writer  of  the  book  of  the  a&s. 


The  areopagite-fenate,  fo  denomina- 
ted from  the  famous  afeopagus,  a  court- 
houfe,  built  upon  a  hill  in  Athens,  was 
the  moft  fecred  and  venerable  tribunal  in 
Greece.  All  the  greater  and  more  capi- 
tal caufes  were  brought  before  it ;  efpe- 
cially  matters  of  religion,  blafphemy  a- 
gainft  the  gods,  and  contempt  of  the  ho- 
ly myfteries.  Dionyfius  is  fuppofed  to 
have  been  one  of  the  judges,  when  Paul 
was  arraigned  before  this  fenate,  as  "  a 
fetter  forth  of  ftrange  gods'*  for  €f  preach- 
ing Jefus  and  anaftafis,"  or  the  refurrec- 
tion.  -  It  is  faid,  and  upon  juft  grounds, 
that  he  was  converted  by  this  apoftle, 
while,  in  the  midft  of  mars-hall,  he  made 
the  addrefs  to  the  men  of  Athens,  recor- 
ded 


2$  DIONYSIUS  AREOPAGITA, 

ded  in  the  17th  Chapter  of  the  Atts.  For 
though  we  are  told,  that  "  fome  mock- 
ed" at  this  preaching ;  it  is  alfo  affirmed, 
that  "  certain  men  believed,  among  the 
which  was  Dionyfius  the  areopagite." 
Acts  xvii.  32,  34. 

Nothing  more  is  recorded,  in  the  fa- 
cred  books,  concerning  this  truly  primi- 
tive father.  Eufebius  fays,  "  he  was 
the  firft  Biihop  of  Athens ;  and  intro- 
duces Dionyfius  of  Corinth  mentioning 
the  fame  thing.  *  No  further  notice  is 
taken  of  him,  until  we  come  to  ages  re- 
mote from  that  in  which  he  lived  -,  on 
which  account  no  great  regard  is  to  be 
paid  to  the  commendations  that  are  there 
bellowed  on  him,  in  thehigheft  ftrains  of 
hyperbolical  language. 

Numerous  are  the  writings  faid  to  be 
left  by  this  Dionyfius  ;  for  which  rea- 
fon  only  I  have  given  him,  among  the 
other  fathers,  a  place  in  this  work.  Some 
there  are  who  ftrenuoufly  plead  for  thefe 
writings  as  genuine  ;  though  it  is  uni- 
verfally  thought  by  proteftants,  and  by 
fome  of  fame  even  in  the  roman  commu- 
nion, that  they  are  falfcly  attributed  to 

him. 

*  H.  E.  Lib.  3.  cap.  4.  lib.  4.  cap.  22. 


DIONYSIUS  AREOPAGITA  2  9 

him.-  None  have  wrote  more  largely,  or 
with  greater  learning,  in  proof  of  their 
being  fpurious,  than  Monfieur  D'aille  ; 
who  has  faid  enough  to  convince  all,  that 
are  capable  of  conviction,  that  this  is 
their  true  character.  The  learned  Du- 
pin  not  only  entertained  this  opinion  of 
them,  but  has  faid  that  which  is  abun- 
dantly fufficient  to  lead  others  into  the 
fame  judgment  about  them.  I  (hall  here 
tranfcribe  one  of  the  many  arguments,  he 
has  ufed  to  evidence  their  being  fuppofi- 
titious  ;  and  I  have  fele&ed  this  for  a  rea- 
fon  that  will  obvioufly  be  fuggefted  to  the 
reader,when  he  fees  what  may  be  offered  re- 
lative to  the  writings  of  another  father,held 
in  great  reputation,  at  leaft  among  fome. 

His  argument  is  this  ;  "  The  manner 
c<  of  the  firft  appearing  of  thefe  books 
*  ought  to  be  fufpe&ed.  For  it  is  cer- 
"  tain,  that,  being  unknown  to  all  anti- 
"  quity,  they  were  firft  quoted  by  thefeve- 
"  rian  heretics,  in  a  conference  holden  be- 
tween them,  and  the  orthodox  Bifhops 
at  Conftantinople,  in  the  palace  of 
the  emperor  Juflinian,  532  years  after 
the  nativity  of  Jefus  Chrift.  Thefi- 
<c  lence  of  all  the  ancient  ecclefiaftical 

"  writer? 


a 


<< 


3o  DIONYSIUS  AREOPAGITA, 

€€  writers  is,  without  doubt,  a  very  great 
"  prejudice  to  them  ;  for  who  can  ima-* 
"  gine,  that  fo  confiderablc  an  author  as 
"  St.  Denys  (if  thefe  books  had  been  real- 
"  ly  compofed  by  hirh)  fhould  have  been 
"  unknown  to  Eufebius  and  St.  Jerom  ? 
"  And  who  can  believe,  that,  if  they  had 
"  known  them,  they  fhould  take  no  no- 
"  tice  of  them,  when  they  compofed  an 
"  exa<5t  catalogue  of  all  the  authors,  of 
**  whom  they  had  any  knowledge  ;  not 
99  omitting  even  thofe  that  had  fo  little 
"  reputation,  that  they  were  fcarcely 
"  heard  of  in  the  world  ?  Is  it  poffible 
49  that  Eufebius,  in  making  mention  of 
"  Dionyfius  the  aropagite,  in  two  feveral 
99  places,  fhould  not  have  obferved,  ac- 
"  cording  to  his  ufual  method,  that  he 
u  had  written  feveral  books  ?  St.  Jerom, 
99  in  his  epiftle  toMagnus,  doth  not  omit 
"  the  teftimony  of  one  fingle  author  to 
"  prove,  that  it  is  lawful  to  make  ufe  of 
99  prophane  books  ;  whereas  the  wri- 
"  tings  of  St.  Denys  might  have  ferved 
"  as  a  notable  proof.  Why  then  doth 
"  he  not  fpeak  fo  much  as  one  word  con- 
"  cerning  them  ?  He  gives  us  an  ac- 
"  count,  in  his  catalogue,  of  Quadratus 
99  Bifhop   of  Athens,   and    of  Ariftides 

"  the 


DIONYSIUS  AREOPAGITA.  31 

"  the  athenian  pnilofopher  :  is  it  pof- 
u  fible,that  St.  Denysfhould  be  moreob- 
"  fcure  than  thefe  two  writers,  or  lefs 
*'  efteemed  by  St.  Jerom  ?  How  could  it 
"  happen,  that  all  the  ancient  writers 
"  mention  St.  Dionyfius  the  areopagite, 
u  as  Dionyfius  Corinthius,  St.  Chyfo- 
r*  ftom,  St.  Ambrofe,  St.  Auguftine, 
"  and  the  author  of  the  dialogues  afcri- 
"  bed  to  St.  Gsfarius,the  brother  of  St. 
"  Gregory  Nazianzen,  fhould  give  us  no 
"  intimation  of  thefe  books  ?  In  fhort, 
"  why  were  thefe  books,  which  contain 
"  many  things  relating  to  the  doftrine 
•  and  difcipline  of  the  chriftian  church, 
"  and  that  would  have  been  of  great  au- 
"  thority,  as  proceeding  fr0m  fo  ancient 
44  and  confiderable  an  author  as  St.  Di- 
"  onyfius  the  areopagite,  never  cited  ei- 
"  ther  for,  oragainftany  heretic,  or  for 
"  the  illuftration  of  anv  point  of  di'f- 
"  cipline  before  the  fixth  age  of  the 
"  church  ?"-- 

The  writings  falfely  atributed  to  Di- 
onyfius the  areopagite  are  as  follow.  A 
book  "  concerning  the  celeftial  hierar- 
chy j"  another  of  "  the  divine  names," 
another    of  u  myftical   divinity  ?'    ten 

F  epiftks  $ 


32  DIOxMYSIUS  AREOPAGITA, 

epifties  ;  four  to  "  Cains,"  one  to 
•«  Doroiheus,"  another  to  "  Sofipater," 
another  to  u.  Polycarp,"  another  to  "  De- 
mophilus,"  another  to  "  Titus,"  another 
to  "  John  the  evangelift."  Thefe  have 
been  printed,  and  reprinted,  both  in  greek 
and  latin,  in  many  parts  ofEurope.  Du- 
pin  fays,  feveral  other  books  were  com  po- 
led by  this  author,  and  quoted  by  him- 
felf ;  fuch  as  a  book  concerning  "  fymbo- 
Ileal  knowledge;"  another  of  "  the  foul;" 
another  of  "  divine  hymns  ;"  another  of 
the  "  juft  judgment  of  God  ;  another  of 
"  thofe  things  that  are  undei  flood  by  the 
mind,  and  that  may  be  perceived  by  the 
fenfes."— But  thefe  are  all  loft. 

These  books,  as  Johannes  Scotus,  the 
firft  tranflator  of  them  into  latin,  tells  us, 
are  infinitely  intricate  and  perplexed,  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  modern  apprehen- 
fion,  and  which  few  are  able  to  pierce  in- 
to, by  reafon  of  the  fublimiry  of  themyf- 
teries  whereof  they  treat.  And,  as  Dr. 
Cave  juftly  and  judiciouflyobferves,"  Who- 
"  ever  was  their  genuine  parent,  or  up- 
"  on  what  account  foever  he  wrote  them, 
"  it  is  .plain,  that  he  laid  the  foundation 
Sj  of  a  myftical  and  unintelligible  divi- 

"  nitj. 


DIONYSIUS  AREOPAGITA.  33 

"  nity  among  chriftians,  and  'that  hence 
"  proceeded  all  thole  wild  roficrufean 
"  notions,  which  forne  men  are  fo  fond 
"  of,  and  the  life  and  practice  whereof 
"  they  cry  up  as  the  very  foul  and  per- 
"  fe&ion  of  the  chriftian  religion.  And 
94  that  this  author  does  immediately  mi- 
"  nifter  to  this  defign,  let  the  reader 
u  judge  by  one  inftance,  and  Iaffure  him 
"  none  of  the  moft  obfcure  and  intricate 
"  paffagesin  thefe  books/'  This  inftance 
he  gives  us*  as  he  himfelf  declares,  ex- 
preffed  word  for  word.  It  is  as  follows; 
V  God  is  known  in  all  things,  and  without 
"  all  things.  He  is  known  by  knowledge, 
*  and  by  ignorance.  There  is  both  a  co- 
u  gitation  of  him,  and  a  word,  and  a  fci- 
"  ence,  and  a  touch,  and  a  knk,  and  an 
"  opinion,  and  a  name,  and  all  other 
"  things ;  and  yet,  he  is  neither  thought, 
ic  nor  fpoken,  nor  named.  He  is  not  any 
u  thing  of  thofe  things  that  are,  nor  is  he 
*'  known  in  any  of  the  things  that  are;  he 
"  is  both  all  things  in  all,  and  nothing  in 
§f  nothing;  out  of  all  things  he  is  known 
*<  to  all,  and  out  of  nothing  to  nothing. 
"  Thefe  are  the  things  which  we  rightly 
"  difcourfe  concerning  God.  And  tljis 
I*  again  is  the  moft  divine  knowledge  of 

«  Go4 


34  DIONYSIUS  AREOPAGITA. 

11  God,  that  which  is  known  by  ignorance, 
"  according  to  the  union  that  is  above  un- 
41  derftanding;  when  the  mind  getting  at 
'*  a  diftance  from  all  things  that  are,  and  ha- 
"  ving  difmided  itfelf,  is  united  to  thofe 
•J  fuperilluftrious  beams  from  whence,  and 
"  where,  it  is  enlightened  in  the  unfa- 
*c  thomable  depths  of  wifdom/* 

M  More  of  this,  (fapthe  Doftor,)  and 
<c  the  like  fluff  is  plentifully  kattered  up 
4i  and  down  thefe  books.  And  if  this  be 
41  not  myftical  and  profound  enough,  I 
"  know  not  what  island  which  certainly 
"  any  man,  but  one  well  verled  in  this  fort 
**  of  theology,  would  look  upon  as  ftrange 
'•  jargon  of  nonfenfe  and  contradiction. 
"  And  yet,  this  is  the  height  of  devotion 
V  and  piety,  which  fome  men  earneftly 
prefs  after,  and  wherein  they  glory  :  as 
if  a  man  could  net  truly  understand  the 
myfteriesof  religion,  until  he  had  re- 
figned  his  reafon  ;  nor  be  a  chriftian, 
without  firft  becoming  an  enthufiaft, 
nor  be  able  to  fpeak  ienfe,  unlefs  in  a 
language  which  none  can  underftand." 


a 


HERMAS. 


HERM  AS. 


His  charaffer,    writings,   tejlimomts  from 
them    with  oifervations^  and  remarks. 


THIS  Hermas  has  fometimes  been  mif- 
takenfor  Hermes,  brothertoPiusI.  aa 
ecclefiaftic  beyond  the  middle  of  the  feconcl 
century.  The  author  of  the  "  pontifi- 
cal" fathered  upon  Damafus,  the  pre- 
tended "  decretals  of  the  Bifhops  of 
Rome,"  together  with  fome  other  ancient, 
as  well  as  modern  writers,  have  fallen  in- 
to this  error,  as  Du-pin  calls  it,  and  has, 
in  common  with  many  other  learned 
men,  proved  it  to  be,  from  all  the  primi- 
tive fathers,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Ter- 
tullian,  Origin,  Eufebius,  and  Jerom  ; 
who  always  call  him  Hermas  never  Her* 
tnes. 

It 


36  HERMAS, 

It  is  unqueftionable,  that  there  wte, 
in  the  firft  age,  a  perfen  of  this  name  $ 
as  the  apoftle  Paul,  among  other  christians 
at  Rome,  falutes  Her  mas  by  name.  *  It 
is  certain  alfo,  that  feveral  of  the  fathers 
thought  the  fcripturc-Hermas  to  be  the 
fame  with  him,  of  whom  we  are  fpeak- 
ing.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Origin, 
Eufebius,  and  Jerom.  But  that  he  was 
really  this  perfon,  is  not  certain  :  nor 
have  we  any  particular  account  of  his 
Juft  character ;  where  he  lived  $  what  he 
did  in  promoting  the  caufe  of  Chrift  ; 
when,  how,  and  in  what  place,  he  died. 
Arch-Bifhop  Wake,  from  fome  paflages 
in  his  "  Paftor,"  mentions  feveral  things, 
by  way  of  conjecture,  defcriptive  of  him  ; 
but,  as  the  more  ancient  records  are  fi- 
lent  about  him,  I  (hall  pafs  from  his 
perfon  to  his 

Writings. 

And  we  have  no  account  of  any  thing 
he  ever   wrote,   but  only  the  book  en- 
tituled,   "    Pallor  ;"   than    which,  per- 
haps, no  piece  is  mcr*  frequently  menti- 
oned 

*  Rom.  x6.    *4, 


H  E  R  M  A  S.  37 

oned  in  antiquity.  And  yet,  it  is  not 
eafy  to  lay,  what  its  authority  was  in 
thofe  days.  Irenaeus  feems  to  quote 
it  under  *  "  the  name  of  lcripture." 
Clement  of  Alexandria  introduces  a  ci- 
tation from  it  in  that  language,  f  "  the 
power  which  fpake  divinely  to  Hermas 
by  revelation."  Tertullian,  before  his 
profeffing  himfelf  a  montanift,  fpcaks 
of  it,  if  not  with  any  high  encomium, 
yet  without  intimating  a  fufpicion  as  if  it 
was  of  no  good  authority.  Origin  calls  it 
J  V  a  very  ufeful  writing.and  in  his  opini- 
on divinely  infpired.  Eufebius  brings  it 
in  doubted  of,  as  to  its  "  canonical  au- 
thority ;"  but  allows  that  it  was  received 
as  a  "  jnftifiable  book,  publicly  read  in 
the  churches,  and  quoted  by  ancient  au- 
thors." Jerom  ftiles  it,  "  a  truly  profi- 
table book,  cited  by  the  greek  fathers/* 

But  notwithftanding  all  this,  it  is 
fometimes  even  defpifed  as  a  work  of  no 
value  ;  and  this,  by  fome  of  the  very  per- 
fons  above-named.    Tertullian,  after  his 

being 


*  "  Bene  ergo  proniinciavit  fcriptura." 
f  "-  Theios  to   Erma  meta   apokalupfiia     laloufa.'* 
J  "  Valde  m&i  utilis  videtur    et,   at  puto,    divinitus 
jnfpirata»" 


38  H  E  R  M  A  S. 

being  infe&ed  with  the  monaftical  errors, 
fpeaks  of  it  in  language  denoting  the 
higheft  contempt.  It  was  fays  he,  * 
4«  rejefted  by  all  the  churches  as  a 
ialfe  and  fpurious  writing/'  Origin  fome- 
times  makes  the  fuppofition,  *f  "  if  it  be 
a  book  to  be  received  ;  "  and  mentions 
it  moreover,  "  as  defpifed  by  fome."  Je- 
rom  calls  it  J  "  an  apocryphal  book,  to 
be  condemned  for  the  folly  contained  in 
it."  Such  difficulty  is  there  in  afcer- 
taining  the  true  eftimate  put  upon  this 
writing  in  ancient  times. 

Nor  are  the  moderns  united  in  the 
judgment  they  pafs  on  it.  They  are  in- 
deed unanimoufly  agreed  to  renounce  it 
as  *(  a  canonical  book  j  yet,  they  differ 
widely  in  the  value  they  exprefs  for  it. 
Some  receive  it  with  refpeft,  as  "  a  vene- 
rable ancient  piece  j"  while  others  look 
upon  it  as  of  "little  worth."  The  learn- 
ed Du-pin  gives  that  account  of  it,  "  It 
"  hath  not  been  (o  much  valued  by  mo- 
"  dern  authors ;  and  there  are  very  few, 

M  at 


*  '<  Ab  omnio    concilio  ecclefiarum    inter  apocrypha  and 
falfa  judicaretur." 

t  "  Si  cui  tamen  libellus  ille  recipiendus  videtur." 
I  "  Liber  ille  apocryphus  ftultiti*  condemnandus  eft." 


H    E   R   M   A   S.         39 

"  at  prefent,  that  commend  it,  or  that 
"  have  the  Tame  regard  to  it  as  thofethat 
"  lived    in    the    primitive   ages    of    the 
"  church.     And  indeed,  if  we  may  judge 
€i  by  the  method  according  to  which  it  is 
"  wrote,  and  by  the  things  therein  con- 
"  tained,itdoes  not  feem  to  deferve  much 
"  efteem.     The  firft  part,  entitled,  n  the 
"  vifions,"  is  full  of  many  revelations  that 
"  are  explained  to  Hermas  by  "  a  wo- 
"  man"  reprefenting  the  church.     They 
"  all   relate  to  the  ftate  of  the  church, 
"  and   the  manners  of  chriftians.     The 
"  fecond  part,   which  is  moft  ufeful,    is 
"  called  "  the  ordinances,"  wherein   are 
"  comprifed  diverfe  precepts  of  morality, 
"  and    pious    inftru£tions,     which    the 
<c  paftor,"  or   "  angel   of  Hermas"  pre- 
**  fcribes  to  him.     The  third  part  is  cal- 
"  led,  the  "  fimilitudes,"  becaufe  it  be- 
*1  gins  with  feveral  "  fimilies,"  or  com- 
"  parifons,    and   concludes  with  vifions. 
"  Thefe  three    books    comprehend  very 
"  many   moral    inftru&ions    concerning 
"  the  practice  of  chriftian  virtues  -,   but 
"  the  great  number  of  vifions,  allegories, 
"  and   fimilitudes,    make   them   tedious. 
"  And  all  thefe   moral  truths  would,  in 
"  my  opinion,   have  been  more  ufeful,  if 

G  «  the 


4o         H    E   R   M   A    S. 

«'  the  author  had  propounded  them  fim- 
««  ply,  as  the  apoftles  had  done  in  their 
"  epiftles." 

This  work  was  penned  in  greek  ; 
though  we  have  now  extant  only  an  old 
latin  verfion.  Barthius  fuppofes  it  not 
to  have  been  tranflated  until  the  days  of 
Jerom,  becaufe  that  writer  fpeaks  of  it  as 
*'  much  ufed  among  the  greeks,  but 
fcarce  known  to  the  latins"  But  Cote- 
lerius  herein  oppofes  him,  proving  it  to 
have  been  read,  by  feveral  of  the  latins 
before  the  age  of  Jerom  ;  and  probably 
they  read  it  in  the  prefent  tranflation  : 
though  it  is  not  known,  at  this  day, 
by  whom  it  ^was  made  :  nor  can  the 
time  of  writing  this  "  paftor"  be 
brought,  with  certainty,  to  an  exaft 
period.  Arch-Bifhop  Wake  places  it 
the  laft  piece  but  one  in  his  "  apofto- 
lical  fathers."  He  might  probably  think 
it  was  wrote  after  the  epiftles  of  Igna- 
tius and  Polycarp.  But  it  is  moft  common- 
ly fuppofed  to  have  been  wrote  much 
fooner.  Some  place  its  date  about  the 
year  90,  a  little  before  the  dioclefian 
perfecution  which  he  is  thought  to  re- 
fer to  in  his  "  fourth  vifion,"      Others 

are 


H  E  R  M  A  S.         41 

are  pcrfuaded,  it  was  wrote  foouer  yet, 
before  the  deftruclion  ot  Jerufalcm, 
and  not  many  years  after  ibme  of  the 
epiftles  of  the  apoftle  Paul  Of  this  opi- 
nion was  the  learned  Dodwell  ;  and  he 
lays  that  in  defence  of  it,  which  is  well 
worthy  of  confideration, 

Testimonies  from  Hermas, 

Vis.  II.  Seel.  II.— «  Thou  (halt  there- 
fore fay  to  thofe  who  are  over  the  churchy 
*  that  they  order  their  ways  in  righte- 
oufnefs,  that  they  may  fully  receive  the 
promiie  with  much  glory/* 

Vis.  ibid.  Sett.  IV\~r"  After  this  I 
faw  a  vifion  at  home  in  my  own  houfe, 
and  the  old  woman,  whom  I  had  kzxx 
before,  came  to  me,  and  alked  me,  whe- 
ther I  had  yet  delivered  -j~  her  book  to  the 
elders  of  the  church.  %     And  *  anfwered, 

I 


*  Qui  pnefunt  ecclefue. 
t  In  t'.e  common  copies  it  is,   u  Si  jam  libellum  dedifleni 

fenioribns."      But  Arch-Bifhop  Wake  fays,  the  word 

"  fuum"  is  added  in  the  Lambeth  M.  S.  according  to 

which  he  has  here  given  the  tranflation. 
\  The  words,  "  of  the  church,"  are  .not  m  the  original,  and 

therefore  printed  by  the   Arch-Biihop  in  Italic  to  give 

notice  of  it.' 


42        H   E  R   M   A  S. 

I  had  not  yet.  She  replied,  thou  haft  well 
done  -,  for  I  have  certain  words  more  to  tell 
thee.  And  when  I  (hall  have  finifhed  all 
the  words,  they  lhall  be  clearly  under- 
ftood  by  the  elect.  And  thou  fhalt  write* 
two  books,  and  fend  one  to  Clement,  and 
one  to  Grapte.  For  Clement  (hall  fend 
it  to  the  foreign  cities,  becaufe  it  is  per- 
mitted to  hira  to  do  fo.  But  Grapte 
ihall  admonifh  the  widows  and  orphans. 
But  thou  fhalt  read  in  every  city  with  the 
ciders  of  -f  the  church." 

Vis.  III.  Sect.  V.  "  Hear  now  con- 
cerning the  ftones  that  are  in  the  build- 
ing. The  iquare  and  white  ftones,  J 
which  agree  exactly  in  their  joynts,  are 
the  apoftles,  and  bifhops,  and  doftors, 

and 

*  ff  Scribes  ergo  duos  libcllos,  etmittes   unum  Clementi,  et 

unum  Greptx.      Mittct  autem  Clemens  in  exteras  civita- 

tes  ;  illi  enim  permiiftim  eft.     Grapte  autem  commone- 

bit  viduas,   et  orphanos.    Tu  autem  leges  in  hac  civitate 

cum  fenioribus  qui  praeiunt  ecclefiae." 

f  The   reader  h  defired  to  take   notice,  that  the  original 

words,    "  qui  prstfunt,"    are   totally  difregarded  by  the 

Arch-Biihop  in   his  tranflation  here.     Could  he  have  left 

out  the   import  of  thefe  words,   without  defign   ?    And 

could  he  have   any  other  defign,   than  to  keep  it  out  of 

light,  that  according  to  Hennas,  Elders  or  Prelbyters  were 

the  perfons   who    presided,   or  were    set     over 

the  church. 

\  u  Lapides  quidem  illi  quadrati,  et  albi,  convenientcs  in 

commiiFuris  fuis,  ii  fuut  apoftoli,  ct  epifopi,  et  doctores, 

et 


H   E  R  M   A   S.         43 

and  minifters,  who,  through  the  mercy 
of  God,  have  come  in,  and  governed*  and 
taught,  and  miniftred  holily  and  modeft- 
ly,  to  the  elect  of  God,  both  that  are 
fallen  afieep,  and  which  yet  remain,  and 
have  always  agreed  with  them,  and  have 
had  peace  within  themfelves,  and  have 
heard  each  other." 

Vis.  ib.  Se&.  IX.- — "  Ye  that  arc 
more  eminent,  fearch  out  thofe  that  are 
hungry,  whilft  the  tower  is  yet  unfinifh- 
ed.  For  when  the  tower  fhali  be  fiiiifh- 
ed,  ye  fhali  be  willing  to  do  good,  and 
{hall  not  find  any  place  ill  it.  Beware 
therefore,  ye  that  glory  id  your  riches, 
left  perhaps  they  groan  who  are  in  want; 
and  their  fighing  come  up  unto  God,  and 
ye  be  fhut  out  with  your  goods  without 
the  gate  of  the  tower.  Behold  I  *  now 
warn  you  who  are  fet  over  the  church, 
and  love  the  higheft  feats  \  be  not  like  un- 
to thofe  that  work  mifchief. — Take  heed, 
my  children,  that  your  dtiTentions  de- 
prive you  not  of  your  lives.     How  will 

ye 

et  minifhi,  qui  ingrefli  funt  in  deindfttia   Dei,  et  epif- 
copatum    geffdrunfr,    et     edocuerunt,    et    miniftraverunt 
fancte." 
*  Nunc   itaque  vobis  died  qui   prsfunt  ecclefia^ .  c:  fcmatis 
brimos  confeifus  ;  noliic---.  " 


44         HERMA  S. 

ye  inftruft  the  ele6t  of  God,  when  ye 
yourfelves  want  correftion  ?  Wherefore 
admonifh  one  another,  and  be  at  peace 
among  yourfelves,  that  I,  (landing  before 
your  father,  may  give  an  account  for  you 
unto  the  Lord." 

Command.  XL  Se<SL  III.  "  Hear  now 
concerning  the  earthly  fpirit,  which  is 
empty,  and  foolifh,  and  without  virtue. 
And  firfl:  of  all,  the  man  who  is  fuppofed 
to  have  this  fpirit  *exalteth  himfelf,  and 
defires  to  have  the  firft  feat,  and  is  wick- 
ed, and  full  of  <words  j  and  fpends  his 
time  in  pleafure,  and  in  all  manner  of 
voluptuoufnefs,  and  receives  the  reward 
of  his  divination." 

Simil.  VIII.  Scft.  VII.— "As  forthofe 
who  had  their  rods  green,  but  yet  cleft  -, 
they  are  fuch  as  were  always  faithful  and 
good,  but  they  -f-  had  fome  envy  andftrife 
among  themfelves  concerning  dig- 
nity and  preheminence.     Now  all  fuch  are 

vain, 

*  "  Exaltat  enim  fe,  et  vult  primam  cathredram  ha- 
bere." 

t  '.'  H^bentes  inter  fe  quandam  invidiam  et  contend- 
onem  de  principatu,  et  dignitate.  Verum  omnes  hu- 
jufmodi  tniipientes  funt  et  futui,  qv.i  habent  inter  fe 
cmuhtionem  de  principatu." 


H   E   R   M   A   S.         45 

vain,  and  without  underflanding,  as  con- 
tend with  one  another  about  thefe  things. 
Neverthelefs,  feeing  they  are  otherwife 
good,  if,  when  they  fhall  hear  thefe  com- 
mands, they  fhall  amend  themfelves,  and 
fhall,  at  my  perfuafion,  fuddenly  repent ; 
they  fhall  at  laft  dwell  in  the  tower,  as 
they  who  have  truly  and  worthily  re- 
pented. But,  if  any  one  (hall  again  re- 
turn to  his  diffentions,  he  fhall  be  fhut 
out  of  the  tower,  and  lofe  his  life.  For 
the  life  of  thofe,  who  keep  the  command- 
ments of  the  Lord,  confifts  in  doing  what 
they  are  commanded  -,  *  not  in  principa- 
lity, or  in  any  other  dignity." 

Simil.  IX.  Sea.  XV. — -"  But,  fir, 
what  were  taken  out  of  the  deep,  and 
fitted  into  the  building  ?  The  ten,  faid 
he,  which  were  placed  at  the  foundation, 
are  the  firft  age  -,  the  following  five  and 
twenty,  the  fecond,  of  righteous  men. 
The  next  thirty-five  are  -f  the  prophets 
and  minifters  of  the  Lord.  And  the  forty 
are  the  apoftles  and  doctors  of  the  preach- 
ing of  the  fon  of  God. 

Simil, 

*  Non  in  princlpatu,  aut  aliqua  dignitate." 
f  "Prophets  domini  et  miniftri  funt  :    quadraginta  ve- 
ro,  apoftcli  et  dottores  funt  prxdicationis  filii  Dd," 


46  H   E  R   M   A  S. 

Simil.  ib.  Sea.  XVI.— «  And  I  faid  ; 
why  then,  fir,  did  thefe  forty  ftones  alio 
afcend  with  them  out  of  the  deep,  hav- 
ing already  received  that  feal  ?  He  anf- 
wered,  becaufe  *  theie  apoftles  and  teach- 
ers, who  preached  the  name  of  the  fon  of 
God,  dying  after  they  had  received  his 
faith  and  power,  preached  to  them  who 
were  dead  before,  and  they  gave  this  feal 
to  them." 

Simil.  ib.  Se£t.  XXV.  As  concerning 
the  eighth  mountain,  in  which  were  ma- 
ny fprings,  by  which  every  kind  of  all  the 
creatures  of  God  was  watered,  -j-  they 
are  fuch  as  have  believed  the  apoftles 
which  the  Lord  fent  into  all  the  world  to 
preach  ;  and  fome  of  them,  being  teach- 
ers, have  preached  and  taught  purely  and 
fincerely,  and  have  not  in  the  lead  yield- 
ed to  anyeivil  defigns,  but  have  conftant- 
ly  walked  in  righteoufnefs  and  truth. 
Thefe  therefore  have  their  conversation 
among  the  angels/' 

Simil. 


"  Apoftoli  et  doclores,  qui  prsedicaverunt  nomen  filii 
Dei." 
t  "  Tales  funt  qui  crediderunt  apoftolis,  quos  mifit  do- 
minus  in  totura   orbem  praedicare  ;    et  quidam  doclo- 
res,  qui  cafte  et  fincere  pr<edicaverunt,  et  decuerunt.7' 


H  E  R  M  A  S.  47 

Simil.  ib.  Seft.  XXVII.  For  what 
concerns  the  tenth  mountain,  in  which 
were  the  trees  Covering  the  cattle,  they 
are  fuch  as  *  have  believed,  and  iome  of 
them  been  Bifhops,  that  is,Governorsof  the 
churches,  f  Others  are  fuch  (tones  as 
have  not  feignedly,  but  with  a  chearful 
mind,  entertained  the  fervahts  of  God. 
Then  +  fuch  as  have  been  fet  ovef  inferior 
ininiftries,  and  have  protested  the  poor, 
and  the  widows,  and  have  always  kept  a 
chafte  conversion.  Thefe  men  there- 
fore are  prote&ed  of  the  Lord." 

Observations 
H 

*  Tales  funt  qui  credidenmt,  quidam  Epifcopi,  id  eft,  pre- 
sides ecclefiarum." 

f  It  is  obfervable^  the  Arch-Bifhop  translates,  in  thl* 
place,  "  presides  eccleliarum,"  governors  of  the 
churches,  becaufe  connected  with  the  word  "  Epif- 
copi," Bishops  ;  though  in  Vi{.  II.  Sett  IV.  the  words, 
"  qui  paefunt  ecclefiae,"  are  paffed  over  without  any  tranf- 
lation  at  all  ;  and  for  no  conceivable  reafon,  but  be- 
caufe they  were  there  connected  with  the  word,  El- 
ders Or  Presbyters.  If  in  either  of  thefe  paSi'a- 
ges>  ".  Governors  of  the  churches,"  is  the  proper  transla- 
tion, it  is  equally  proper  in  both  ;  for  the  original  words 
no  otherwife  differ,  than  as  a  iubftantive  differs  from 
a  verb.  _  It  is  left  with  the  reader  to  judge,  whether  the 
Arch-Bilhop  has  approved  hioifelf  fo  fair  and  impartial 
a  translator,  as  might  juftly  have  been  expe&ed. 

t  Et  deinde  qui  prxfides  funt  miriifteriorum,  qui  et  inope? 
if  viduas  protexerunt, 


48  H  E  R  M  A  S. 

Observations    and     Remarks     upon 
the  foreaping  teftimonies. 

1 
From  thefe  paiTages  in  Hermas,  which 
are  all  I  can  find  to  the  purpolc  of  the 
prefent  controvei  fy,  the  reader  may,  in 
fome  meaiure,  perceive  the  obfcuiity,  with 
which  his  writings  are  perplexed.  It 
appears  that  he  has,  here  and  there,  drop- 
ed  a  few  words  that  bear  relation  to  the 
point  we  are  upon  ;  but  what  he  has  faid 
is  generally  fo  blended  with  vifionary  or 
parabolical  matter,  that  it  is  not  eafy,  by 
any  rational  connection  in  his  difcourfc, 
to  determine  his  meaning  -,  and  if  we 
would  underfland  him,  we  muft  ordina- 
rily confine  ourfelves  to  the  words  bare- 
ly as  they  lie;  unlefs,  by  comparing  them 
with  others  of  the  like  import,  in  other 
parts  of  his  writing,  we  may  be  helped 
infixing  their  true  fenfe. 

But  dark  as  he  is,  there  are  fome  plain 
intimations,  that  the  world,  in  his  day, 
were  not  acquainted  withBifhops,  as  offi- 
cers fuperior  in  their  order  to  Prefbyters; 
yea,  that  the  churches  were  fo  far  from 
being  modelled  after  the  prefent  epifcopal 
form,  that  the  management  of  their  reli- 
gious 


H  E  R  M  A  S.  49 

gious  affairs  was  in  the   hands,   not  of 

SINGLE    PERSONS,     but    a    PLURALITY    ; 

and  this,  of  equal  rank.     It  is  a  com- 
mon   phrafe    in     thcfe    writings,    "    qui 
prsefunt       ecclefioe,"     that     is,    "   who 
are    fet  over  the  church."      And  left  it 
lhould   be  pretended,  the  word,  church, 
is    ufed   to   fignify  the    church-catholic, 
in  which  fenfe   it  might  be  true,    that  it 
had  a  plurality  fet  over  it,  though  parti- 
cular churches  had  only  afingle  Bifhop  at 
their  head  :  I  fay,to  take  away  all  ground 
for  fuch  a  pretence,  we  have  fuch  an  ob- 
fervable  paffage    as  that,  *  "  And  thou 
(Hermas)  {halt  read  in  this  city  with 
the  elders  who  are  fet  over  the  church." 
A  more  exprefs  teftimony  could  not  well 
be  given  to  this  fact,  that  the  church 
of  Rome,  at    lead,   was,  in  this    age,  go- 
verned, not  by  any  Jingle  pqftor -but  z  plu- 
rality, which  plurality  were  Prejbyters,  or 
if  you  pleafe  Bifhops;  meaning  hereby  the 
same  order  of  officers  in  the  church. 
For  it  is  remarkable,  the  word,  Bifhops, 
(Epifcopi)   is  explained  by  Hermas  him- 
ielf  to  fignify,  "  Prsefides  ecclefiarum  f.  f 
that  is  to  fay,   he  defcribes  Bifhops    by 

their 


*  Vif.  II.  Serb.  IV. 

f  Sim.  IX.  Sett.  XXVII, 


5o         H   E  R   M    A   S. 

their  being  "  thofc  who  are  fet  ov.er  the 
church  ;"  and  thofe  who  are  t(  fet  over 
the  church"  he  expreffly  calls  *  ("  Se- 
niores")  Elders,  or  Pr.efbyters  ;  io  that, 
as  it  happily  falls  out,  Bifhops  and  Prefby- 
ters, according  to  Hermas's  own  explana- 
tion of  himfelf,  are  one  and  the  fame  offi- 
cers in  the  church,  ipoken  of  promif- 
cuouily,  as  in  the  new-teftament-writings, 
under  the  names  of  Biflapps  or  Pref- 
byters, 

But  that  this  matter  may  be  fet  in  a 
yet  ftronger  point  of  light,  I  (hall  bring 
to  view,  and  confider,  what  is  brought 
from  Herman  in  favor  of  the  diflindi- 
on, he  is  fuppofed,  by  epifcopalian  writers, 
to  make  between  Bifhops  and  Prefby- 
ters.    And, 

The  firft  paffage  to  this  purpofe,  we 
have  in  Vif.  II.  Sett.  IV,  in  which  it  is 
faid,  %i  Thou  fhalt  write  two  books,  and 
fend  one  to  Clement,  and  one  to  Grapte. 
And  Clement  fhall  fend  it  to  the  foreign 
cities  ;  for  to  him  it  is  permitted."  In 
thefe  words,  fome  are  fo  iharp-fighted  as 

to 

*  Vif.  II.  Sea,  IV. 


H   E  R  M   A  S.         51 

to  perceive  plain  evidence  of  epifcopal 
iuperiority.  For,  fay  they,  Clement  was 
now  Bifhop  of  Rome,  and  the  care  of 
"  fending  this  book,"  or  letter,  to  the 
"  foreign  cities,"  was  devolved  on  him, 
without  all  doubt,  in  virtue  of  his  office, 
as  head  of  the  church  ;  to  whom,  upon 
this  account,  this  buiinefs  moft  properly 
belonged. 

The  anfwer  is  eafy.      That  Clement 
was  now  Bifhop  of  Rome,  meaning  here- 
by the  fingle  head,  or  governor  of  this 
church,  is  fo  far  from   being  probable, 
that  the  diredt  contrary  hereto  is  moft 
evidently  fignified  by  Hermas's  "  paftor," 
in  the  latter  part  of  this  very  paragraph  ; 
where  he  fpeaks  of  the  church  of  Rome 
as  under  the  government,  not  of  any  fin- 
gle perfon.      And  thou  "  fhalt   read  in 
this  city  with  the   Elders   who  are 
fet  over  the  church  :"  which  words,  I  am 
perfuaded,  can  never  be  made  to  confift 
with  Clement's   being  now  the  epifcopal 
head  of  this  church.     He  might,  at  this 
time,  be  related  to  the  church  of  Rome, 
as  one  of  their  Bifhops,  or  Elders  ;    and 
he  might  alfo  be  the  moft  accomplished 
and  dirtinguifhed  among  them  ;  the  moft 

known, 


5z        H   E  R  M  A   S. 

known,  valued,  and  refpe&ed  :  to  whom, 
upon  thefe  accounts,  it  might  be  given  in 
charge,ratherthantoanyoftheotherElders 
or  Bifhops,  to  fend  this  book,  or  epiftle  ; 
but  not  becaufe  it  fo  belonged  to  him  of 
right,  and  in  virtue  ©f  his  office,  as  that  it 
could  not  have  been  devolved  upon  any 
other.  It  does  not  appear,  either  from 
Hermas,  or  any  other  ancient  writer,  that 
the  care  of  fending  letters  to  the  churches 
was  the  work  of  Bifhops,  as  a  peculiar 
badge  of  their  office.  The  moft  capable, 
or  moft  univerfally  known  officer,  in  any 
church,  might  ordinarily  be  pitched  upon 
to  do  this  ;  and  nothing  more  can  be  ar- 
gued from  it,  than  that  he  was  thought 
the  beft  qualified  perfon  for  fuch  a 
work.  Moft  certainly,  it  is  too  trifling  a 
matter  on  which  to  found  a  diftinftion  of 
order  between  the  officers  of  a  church. 

The  next  paffage  recurred  to  we  have, 
in  Vif.  III.  Seel:.  V.  in  which  are  thefe 
words;  "  The  fquare  and  the  white ftones 
are  the  Apoftles,  andBifhops,  andDoctors, 
and  Minifters,  who,  through  the  mercy  of 
God,  have  come  in,  and  exercifed  epifco- 
pacy,  and  taught,  and   miniftred."      Co- 

telerius's  note  here  is,  "  Hie  habes. In 

Englifli 


H   E   R   M   A   S.         53 

Englifh  thus,  "  You  have  here  the  dif- 
t'mdi  orders  of  the  hierarchy,  in  apoftles, 
in  Bifhops  exercifmg  epifcopacy,  in  Doc- 
tors or  Prefbyters  teaching,  and  in. Dea- 
cons wpi$ring.''  And  the  common 
plea  of  prelatical  writers,  from  this  paf- 
fage,  is,  that  the  three  officers  of  the 
church,  Bi/hops,  Prefbyters ;  and  Deacons, 
are  here  direftly  mentioned  ;  and  the 
diftin&ion  of  their  offices  plainly  infi- 
nuated  by  diftinft  work  affigned  thern  ; 
the  Bifhops  being  defcribed  by  their  "  ex- 
ercifing  epifcopacy,"  the  Dodtors  or  Pref- 
byters by  their  "  teaching,"  and  the  Dea- 
cons by  their  "  miniftring." 

This  turn  given  to  the  words,  may, 
to  thofe  who  have  not  read  the  "  paftor 
of  Hernias,"  carry  the  appearance  of  plau- 
fibility;  but,  when  fairly  and  impartial- 
ly examined,  they  will  be  found  to  make 
nothing  againft  the  affirmation,  that  Bi- 
fhops and  Prefbyters  are  one  and  the  fame 
order  of  officers  in  the  church  of  Chrift. 
Two  things  are  here  pleaded. 

The   firft   is,  that    direct    mention    is 
here  made  of  three  forts  of  officers  in  the 
church,  viz.   BtjBops,  Dolors    or  '"Prefby- 
ters 


54         H  E  R   M  A  1 

ters,  and  Minifters  or  Deacons?  But  if 
the  word,  Doctors,  is  here  ufed  exegeti- 
cally  5  not  fpecifyingdiftinft  officers  from 
Bifhops,  but  meaning  only  a  difference  in 
the  work  of  one  and  the  fame  officers, 
there  is  plainly  no  force  in  the  argument 
from  this  enumeration.  And  that  this  is 
really  the  truth  of  the  matter,  I  fhall  now 
make  evident,  beyond  all  reafonable 
difpute,  even  from  Hermas  himfelf.  In 
order  whereto* 

Let  us  turn  toSimil.IX.  Seel.  XXVIt 
where  we  have  thefe  words,  "  As  con- 
cerning the  tenth  mountain,  in  which 
were  trees  that  covered  the  cattle,  they 
are  fuch  as  have  believed,  certain  Bifhops, 
that  is,  perfons  fet  over  the  churches,— 
and  then  fuch  as  are  fet  over  the  fervices, 
who  have  protected  the  poor  and  widows/* 
In  thispaflage  two  orthreethingsare  very 
obfervable.  (i)  That  the  word,  Bifhops, 
is  particularly  explained,  and  its  fenfe, 
as  ufed  in  the  writings  of  Hermas,  punc- 
tually afcertained  :  which  I  thus  notice, 
prefuming  it  will  be  acknowledged  rea- 
fonable to  ftand  to  that  fenfe  of  a  word, 
in  an  author,  which  he  himfelf  has  given 
of  it.  (2)  It  is  plain,  the  words,  "  Epif- 
copi,"  and  "Praefides  ecclefiarum,"  do,  in 

Hermas, 


ti   E  R   M   A   S.  55 

Hermas,  fignify  precifely  one  and  thfe 
fame  thing.  That  is  to  fay,  •«  Bifhops," 
and  "  fuch  as  are  fet  over  the  church/* 
do  intend  one  and  the  fame  order  of 
church-officers.  For  the  explanati- 
on, given  byHermas,  of  the  word  «*  Bi- 
fhops," is*  their  being  perfons  that  arc 
"  fet  over  the  church."  (3)  Here  are  evi- 
dently two,  and  only  two  orders  of 
church-officers  fpecified  j  namely* 
Bifoops  and  Deacojis  :  Bifhops,  under  that 
ftile,  u  Prsefides  ecclefiarum,"  perfons 
M  fet  over  the  church  j"  and  Deacons, 
chara&erifed  by  the  phrafe*  "  Prsefides 
minifteriorum,"  fuch  as  were  "  fet  over 
thefervices  $"  that  is*  that  had  the  care  of 
"  the  poor,  and  the  widows,"  as  follows 
in  the  next  words  ;  which  perfectly  co- 
incide with  the  original  reafon  of  the  in- 
ftitution  of  the  Deacon's  office,  and  de- 
fcribe  its  proper  woik. 

Th£se  things  confidered,  I  fear  not  to 
fay,  that  there  is  good  reafon,  why,  when 
Hermas  fpeaks  of  "  Bifhops,  and  Doc- 
tors, and  Minifters,"  we  fhould  under- 
ftand  the  words,  "  Doftors,"  exegetically, 
or  explicative  of  the  word,  "  Bifhops  ;" 
not  intending  a  diftinft  order  of  officers, 
I  but 


56  H   E  R  M   A  S. 

but  rather  pointing  our  thoughts  to  dif- 
ferent work  of  the  lame  officers.  And,  in 
truth,  unlefs  we  interpret  the  word  after 
this,  or  fome  fuch  fenle,  we  fhall  fet  Her- 
nias at  odds  with  himfelf.  For  he  has 
moft  punctually  ascertained  the  meaning 
cf  the  word,  "  Biihops,"  making  it  to  fig- 
nify  precifely  the  fame  thing  with  lt  prae- 
fides  ecclefiarum,"  perfons  "  fet  over  the 
church."  Now  the  phrafe,  "  Prsefides  ec* 
clefiarum,"  is  perfectly  the  fame  with, 
M  qui  praefunt  ecclefiae  $*  which,  in  Vif. 
II.  Seel.  IV,  is,  in  the  moft  exprefs  man- 
ner, applied  to  Presbyters  ovElders.  "Thou 
fhalt  read  [cum  Senioribus,  qui  praefunt 
ccclefise]  with  the  Elders,'  or  Presbyters, 
that  are  fet  over  the  church."  So  that, 
by  the  moft  eafy  and  natural  deduction, 
Bifhops  and  Prefbyters,  according  toHer- 
mas,  are  the  same  order  of  officers  in 
the  church  :  Nor  can  Hermas  be  ever 
made  confiftent  with  himfelf,  unlefs,wheii 
he  fpeaks  of  "  Biihops  and  Doctors,"  we 
take  him  to  ufe  the  word,  "  Doctors,"  as 
exegetical  of  the  word,  "  Biihops,"  or  a 
fynonimous  expletive  ;  meaning  only  the 
fame  order  of  perfons  by  both  thefe  terms. 
And,  this  interpretation  will  appear  more 
eafy,  if  it  be  confidercd,  that  the  words, 

"  Bifhopz" 


H   E  R  M   A   S. 


57 


#  Bifhops,,  and  "  Dolors,"  are  common- 
ly ufed  in  the  writings  of  all  antiquity,  as 
fynonimous  terms.  Nor  is  the  term, 
"  Dolor,"  ever  appropriated  to  Prefbyters 
in  diftinclion  from  Bifnops.  Far  from 
this,  even  after  the  diftincHon  between 
Biihops  obtained  in  the  church,  the  word, 
€S  Doctors",  is  commonly  applied  to  Bi- 
fhops  :  nor  was  it  ever  an  appropriated 
term  to  point  out  Prefbyters  in  diftinclion 
from  Biihops. 

Moreover,  it  ought  to  be  confiJered, 
Hermas  never  makes  the  like  enumerati- 
on, "  Apoftles,  and  Biihops,  and  Doc- 
tors, and  Minifters ;"  but  feveral  times 
makes  another,  by  which  this  ought,  in 
all  reafon,  to  be  explained.  In  Simil.  IV. 
Seel,  XV.  it  is  faid,  "  the  forty  ftones  are 
the  Apoftles  andDoclors  of  the  preaching 
of  the  fon  of  God,  Again,  in  Sim.  ib. 
Seel.  XVI.  Thefe  fame<{  forty  ftones"  are 
explained  to  mean,  "  the  Apoftles  and 
Doclors  of  the  preaching  of  the  name  of 
the  Son  of  God."  Yet  again  Sim.  ib. 
Sea.  XXV.  We  read  of  fuch  as  *  \g* 
lieved  the  Apoftles  and  certain  Doctors, 
who  fincerely  preached  the  word."  In 
all  thefe  places,  mention  is  made  only  of 

5<  ApTjftks" 


58        H   E   R   M   A   S. 

"  Apoftles"  and  "  Doctors."  But,  If 
Dolors  did  not  mean  the  fame  thing  with 
Bifhops,  it  is  very  extraordinary,  and  no 
episcopalian  can  account  for  it,  that  Bi- 
fhops mould  always  be  omitted  in  thefe 
enumerations,and  "Doctors"  always  men- 
tioned. And  truly,  by  this  frequent 
coupling  of  Apoftles  and  Dolors,  it  is 
quite  natural  to  think,  that  Dodtors  were, 
in  the  opinion  of  Hermas,  the  next  offi- 
cers in  the  church  to  Apoftles,  and  by  no 
means  ari  order  inferior  to  Bifhops. 

It  may  be  properly  added,  as  Hermas 
had    been   fpeaking   of   "   four-cornered 
ftones,"  it  is  highly  probable,  if  not  cer- 
tain, that  he  mentions  the  four    names, 
'*  apoftles,  Bifhops,  Doctors,  and  Mini- 
sters," only  to  make  out   fomething  that 
might  look  like  an  analogy.    Inotherpla- 
ces,  where  he  had  not  to  do  with  "  fquare 
ftones,"  he  gives  us   no  fuch  enumera- 
tion.     For  myfelf,  I  am  fully  perfuaded, 
we  fhould  not  have  had  it  here,  had  it 
not  been  for  this  trifling   circumftance. 
But  if  any  (hould  infift  upon  the  neceffi- 
ty  of  a  ftricl  and  proper  analogy,   and 
that  it  was  Hermas's   defign   to  exhibit 
one,  the  confequence  would   be  as  fatal 

tP 


H  E  R  M  A  S.  59 

to  the  caufe  of  epifcopacy,  as  to  that  of 
prefbyterianifm.  For,  upon  this fuppofiti- 
on,  there  muft  be  four  orders  in  the 
church,  not  three,  anfwering  to  the 
4<  four  corners"  of  thefe  "  fquare-ftones ;" 
and  the  "  Apoftles,"  here  mentioned, 
muft  be  officers  as  difthiEl  from  the  "  Bi- 
fhops,"  as  the  M  Bifhops"  are  from  the 
<*  Doctors  :"  but  howconfiftent  this  will 
be  with  the  pretence,  that  Bifhops  are  veil- 
ed with  the  apoftolic  office,  as  their  pro- 
per and  only  fucceffors,I  muft  leave  thofe 
to  determine,  whofe  concern  it  is  to  do  fo. 

The  other  branch  of  the  plea  is,  that 
Hermas  not  only  mentions  "  Bifhops, 
and  Doctors  or  Prefbyters,  and  Minifters 
or  Deacons  ;"  but  plainly  infinuates  a  dif- 
tincHon  of  order  between  them,  by  dif- 
tinct  works  affigned  them  :  for,  he  re- 
prefents  the  Bifhops,  as  "  cxercifing  epif- 
copacy ,"  the  Doctors,  as  H  teaching  £' 
and  the  minifters,  as  <'miniftring/' 

And  it  is  confeffed,  if,  in  the  age  of 
Hermas,  the  work  of  (i  exercifmg  epif- 
copacy," and  the  work  of  "  preaching," 
were  feparated  from  each  other,  as  they 
too  commonly  are  now  a  days,  the  argu- 
ment 


60         H   E   R   M   A  S. 

merit  would  carry  with  it  fome  force.   It 
is  in    fa£t   true,  at    prefent,  that  thofe 
H  exercifr   epifcopacy,"    who   feldom    or 
never  exercife  themfelves  in  t€  preaching/' 
And,  indeed,   it  rarely  happens,  that  the 
perfons  vefted   with  the  epifcopal  office 
concern  themfelves  much  with  this  other 
bufinefs.      But  it  was  not  thus  from  the 
beginning.      Preaching    was     not    then 
looked  upon  as  the  diftinguiimng  mark 
of  officers  infeiior  to  Bifhops  :  but,  for 
many  ages,  the  work  of  *f  exercifing  epif- 
copacy/' and  the  work  of  "  preaching," 
were  both  united  in  one  and  the  fame  of- 
ficer of  the  church  ;   and  "  laboring  in 
the   word  and    doftrine"  was  the  moft 
known,  and  diftinguifhing  chara&er   of 
all  that  were  Bifhops   :    infomnch,  that 
a  fingle  inftance  cannot  be  produced  (I 
fpeak  it  with  great  pofitivenefs)  of  a  per- 
fon    "   exercifing   epifcopacy,"    that   did 
not,  at  the  fame  time,  make  it  his  chief 
bufinefs  to  "  preach  ;"  until  we  come  in-- 
to  thofe  ages,  in  which  the  grofleft  cor- 
ruptions were  prevalent  among  all  orders 
and  degrees  of  men  in  the  church.      So 
that,  it  is  no  argument,  that  the  "  Doc- 
tors"   in    Hermas   were   diftinft   officers 
from  Bifhops,  becaufe  they  are  fpoken  of 


H   E  R  M  A  S.         6t 

as  "  preaching,"  and  the  Bifhops  as  M  ex- 
ercifing  epifcopacy."  For  thele  are  both 
parts  of  one  and  the  fame  office  ;  and 
were  always  joined  together,  until,  by 
corruption,  they  were  feparated.  A  Bi- 
fhop  that  was  not  a  "  Do&or,"  or  "  teach- 
er," was  not  known  in  the  world  in  pri- 
mitive times.  It  is  therefore  impoffible, 
the  '<  Doctors",  in  this  paflage,  could  be 
diftinft  officers  from  the  "  Bifhops,"  for 
this  reafon  ;  as  it  had  no  exiftence  until 
hundreds  of  years  after  its  being  penned.  It 
is  far  more  reafonableto  fuppoie,the  fame 
order  of  officers  are  here  called  both  "  Bi- 
fhops"  and  "  Doctors,"  as  pointing  us  to 
both  parts  of  their  office,  •'  exercifing 
epifcopacy"  and  "  preaching,"  or  "  teach- 
ing." 

The  only  remaining  places  in  Hermas, 

in  which  epifcopacy  is    fought   for,  are 

Vif.  III.  Seft.  IX.  ft  I  fay  unto  you  who 

are  fet  over  the  church,  and  love  \\\zjirjt 

featsr      Mand.   XII.   Sett.   VII.    "  The 

earthly  fpirit  exalteth  itfelf,  and  will  have 

the/r//    chairr       Simil.    VI.   taffl   VII. 

"  They  are  fuch— as  had  fome  envy  and 

ilrife  among   themfelves  for   principality 

and  dignity.*'      The  plea  here  is,  though 

Hermas 


6i        HERMAN 

Hermas  blames  all  contention  about 
"  precedence  ;"  yet  he  plainly  fuppofes, 
at  the  fame  time,  z  firft  or  chief  feat;  fome 
fuperior  place  in  the  church,  proper  to 
perfons  of  a  fuperior  rank  or  order  ;  fuch 
as  Biihops  in  that,  and  fucceeding  ages. 

To  which  I  would  fay*  it  is  very  plain, 
from  thefe  paffages  in  Hermas,  that  there 
was  an  afluming  ambitious  fpirit  then 
prevailing  among  thofe,  who  were  "  fet 
over  the  church,"  which  "  earthly 
fpirit/'  as  he  terms  it,  he  cautions  againft, 
as  what  ought  not  to  be  encouraged.  But 
that  he  fuppofes,  when  he  warns  againft 
*'  pride,  envy,  and  a  love  of  the  firft  feats," 
there  were  any  officers  in  the  church  of  a 
rank  or  order  fuperior  to  that  of  Pref- 
byters,  there  is  no  juft  ground  to  think. 
When  Hermas  dehorts  from  fj  loving  the 
iirft  feats,  defiring  the  firft  chair,  con- 
tending for  principality  and  dignity  C  he 
undoubtedly  intends,  by  all  thefe  phfafes, 
one  and  the  fame  thing  :  that  is  to  fay, 
he  had  it  in  view  to  diicountenance  that 
proud,  ambitious  fpirit,  which  reigned  in 
fome  ;  unreafonably  pufhing  them  on 
to  afpire  after  fuperiority  and  prece- 
dence.     It  does  not  appear  to  have  been 

his 


U   E   R  M  A   S.         63 

his  aim  to  Insinuate  a  fuperiority  of  or- 
der between  Bifhops  and  Prefbyters  ;  but 
to  check  the  growing  vanity  of  thofe, 
who,  being  of  one  and  the  fame  rank,  yet 
fought  for  pre-eminence,  and  ftrove  to 
get  exalted  above  their  brethren.  The 
temper  of  the  perfons  Hermas  here  finds 
fault  with,  feems  to  have  been  much  the 
fame  with  that*  which  the  Apoftles  dif- 
covered  when  they  contended,  "  who 
among  them  fhouki  be  greateft  :"  or,  ra- 
ther, like  that  of  Diotrephes,  of  whom  it 
is  faid,  "  that  he  loved  to  have  the  pre- 
heminence  ;"  or  ( as  the  word  Philopro- 
teuein  fignifies)  "  loved  to  hold  the  firfl 
place."  But,  as  it  is  no  argument,  that 
there  was  among  the  Apoftles  any  Jnperi- 
ority  of  order,  becaufe  they  affected  ibme 
to  be  greateft  ;  or,  that  there  was  a  like 
fuperior  office  in  the  church,  to  which  a 
chief  feat  was  appropriated,  becaufe  Dio- 
trephes was  of  an  afpiring  haughty  fpirit : 
fo  neither  is  it  any  argument  of  the  fame 
thing,  that  Hermas  blames  the  fame  fpi- 
rit, and  warns  againft  it. 

Nor  if,  in  the  days  of  Hermas,  there 

had  been  a  known  jirjl  feat,  or  chief  chair, 

appropriated  tofome  fpecialperion,  would 

K  it 


64         HERMAN 

it  at  once  follow  from  hence,  that  there 
was  a  superiority  of  order  between 
Bifhops  and  Prefbyters.  Hermas,  to  be 
fure,  neither  plainly  mentions,  or  tacitly 
iuggefts,  fuch  a  thing;  nor  makes  any  ap- 
plication of  thefe  feats  to  this  purpofe. 
And  as  a  chief  feat  >  or  firjt  chair ;  is  com- 
monly affigned  to  the  moderators  of  all 
ecclefiaftical  confiftories,  whether  greater 
or  lefs,  who  yet  have  no  primacy   of 

POWER,     rlO      SUPERIORITY     OF    OFFICE, 

but  meerly  for  the  fake  of  decency  and 
order,  this  might  be  the  cafe  here:  though 
I  am  rather  inclined  to  think,  that  no- 
thing more  is  intended  by  thefe  phrafes, 
thart  an  indication  of  that  pride  and  va- 
nity, which  too  much  prevailed,  even  in 
thofe  early  days,  among  the  officers  of  the 
chriftian  church  ;  which  Hermas  there- 
fore endeavours,  by  proper  confiderations, 
to  reft  rain  and  curb. 


CLEMENT 


CLEMENT  of  Rome. 


flis  charaBer,     writings,     and    telitmonies 
from  them,  with  obfervations  and  remarks* 


THE  account  we  have  in  the  "  Re- 
cognitions"  falfely  afcribed  to  this 
Clement,ofhis  noble  birth  and  parentage ; 
his  being  fent  by  his  father  Fauftinus  to 
be  a  ftudent  at  Athens  \  the  manner  and 
circumltances  of  his  converfion  j  his  in- 
f]:ru£Uon  under  Barnabas  ;  hi?  baptifm 
by  the  Apoftle  Peter,  together  with  the 
various  adventures  of  ibme  of  his  neareft 
relatives  I  fhall  pafs  over  in  filence  :  not 
Ipoking  upon  that  fuppofititious  piece  of 
authority  fufficient  to  encourage  a,  belief 
of  thefe  things. 

Nor  is  it  abfolutely  certain,  that  this 
i$  that  Clement,  of  whom  we  read  in  the 

fourth 


66     CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

fourth  chapter  to  thePhilippians  j  though, 
as  we  know  of  no  one  under  this  name, 
to  whom  this  text  may  be  fo  well  applied, 
the  conjecture  in  which  the  generality  of 
learned  writers  are  agreed,  feems  no  ways 
improbable,  that   he  is  the  perfon   there 
intended:   efpecially,  confidering  the  an- 
cient fathers  do  either  expreflly  call  him 
the  fcripture-Clement,  or  fo  defcribe  him 
as  naturally  to  point  our  thoughts  to  this 
father,  rather  than  any  other  of  the  fams 
name.      Irenseus   fpeaks  of  him  as  one 
that  «  had  (een   the  Apoftles,  converfed 
with  them,  and  attended  on  their  preach- 
ing."     Origin,  Eufebius,  and  Jerom  do 
all  of  them  diredUy  take  notice  of  him, 
as  the  Clement  "  fpoken  of  in  fcripture/' 
And  if  this  was  he,   the  honorable  men- 
tion an  infpired  pen   makes  of  him,  as 
iC   an  Apoftle's    fellow-laborer    in      the 
gofpel,   and  one   whofe  name  was  in  the 
book  of  life,"  is  a  very  recommending  cir- 
cumftance,  and  cannot  well  fail  of  giv- 
ing us  a  favorable    opinion  of  any  ge- 
nuine writing,  we  may  meet  with  under 
his  name. 

But  however  this  be,  he  was  a  perfon 
anciently  had  in  great  veneration.    Scarce 

any 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.    6j 

any  of  the  firft  fathers  are  more  frequent- 
ly mentioned  in  antiquity,  or  their  names 
remembered  in  higher  expreflions  of  re- 
fpedt  and  honor.  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria fpcaks  of  him  in  the  ftile  of  "  an 
Apoftle"  ;  Origin  (or  Ruffin  his  tranfla- 
tor)  calls  him  I1  the  faithful  Clement";  the 
author  of  "  the  queftions  and  anfwers" 
afcribed  to  Juftin  Martyr,  f«  the  Hefted 
Clement;"  Jerom,  "an  apoftolical  man." 

He  is  faid  to  have  been  Bifhop  of  Rome: 
though  It  muft  be  obferved  here,  we  fhail 
be  much  miftaken,  if,  from  his  being 
fpoken  of  in  the  ftile  of  Bifhop,  we  fliould 
imagine  him  like  one  of  our  Englifh 
diocelans.  It  is  indeed  probable  enough, 
the  ancients^  that  call  him  Bifhop,  after 
the  epifcopal  power  and  grandeur  had 
arofe  to  fome  height,  might,  by  this  ap- 
pellation, mean  fuch  a  kind  ot  ecclefiaftic 
as  the  Bifhop  was  in  their  day.  But  this 
is  no  argument  that  he  was  io,  either  in 
reality,  or  in  the  efteem  of  the  more  pri- 
mitive fathers.  We  {hall  afterwards  fee 
it  to  be  the  truth,  that,  until  towards  the 
clofe  of  the  fecond  century,  Bifhops  and 
Prefbyters  were  only  different  names  for 
one  and  the  fame  order  of  officers  in  the 

chriftian 


68    CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

chriftian  church,  and  promifcuoufly  ufed 
Juftin  the  fame  manner,  as  in  the  Apoftles 
days  :  upon  which  account,  when  Cle- 
ment is  fpoken  of  as  Bifhop  of  Rome, 
it  amounts:  to  no  more  than  if  he  had 
been  called  the  Paflor,  or  one  of  the  Pref-> 
byters  of  that  church.  Agreably  Ire- 
naeus,  in  mentioning  the  perfons  that 
fucceeded  in  theroman  church,  fometimes 
does  it  under  the  name  of  Bifhops,  and 
fometimes  under  the  names  of  Pref- 
byters ;  evidently  ufing  thefe  names  pro- 
rnifcuoufly,  as  fignifying  one  and  the 
iame  order  of  church  officers.  This  will. 
be  fully  (hewn  in  its  proper  place. 

But  though  he  was  Bifhop,  or  Paftor, 
of  the  church  of  Rome,  yet  the  particular 
time  of  his  entering  upon  this  charge  is 
matter  of  great  difficulty  ;  as  is  alfo  the 
exa£t  place  he  bears  in  the  order  of  fuc- 
ceflion  :  the  ancient  fathers  being  fo 
ftrangely  divided  in  thejr  accounts  upon 
this  head.  Tertullian  derives  the  fuc- 
cetfion  from  Peter ;  and  makes  Clement 
his  immediate  fuccefibr.  The  author 
of  the  "  apoftplicai  conftitutions"  places 
at  the  head  of  the  fucceffion  the  Apoftle 
Paul,  as  well  as  Peter;  and  make   Linus 

to 


CLEMENT  of  R 


OME. 


tofucceed  Paul,  and  Clement  Peter  -,  but 
not  until  after  the  death  of  Linus. 
Irenaeus  and  Eufebius,  befides  Linus,  name 
Anacletus  before  Clement  ;  giving  the 
order  thus,  Linus,  Anacletus,  Clement. 
And,  after  the  days  of  Eufebius,  ftill  grea- 
ter confufion  is  to  be  feen  in  the  cata- 
logues of  this  fucceffion.  In  fome  Ana- 
cletus is  expunged,  and  Cletus  placed  in 
his  room  ;  while  others  retain  both  Cle- 
tus and  Anacletus.  And  the  order  in 
which  thefe  are  placed,  is  much  varied. 
In  fome  the  line  is  feen  running  thus,  Li- 
nus, Clement,  Cletus,  Anacletus.  In 
others,  Linus,  Cletus,  Clement,  Anacle- 
tus. And  again  in  others,  Linus,  Cle- 
tus, Anacletus,  Clement.  And  agrea- 
bly  the  later  Greeks  (as  Bifhop  Pearfon 
obferves  from  Cotelerius)  do  call  Cle- 
ment, fometimes  the  fecond,  and  fome- 
times  the  third  Biihop  of  Rome* 

In  fuch  confufion  is  the  line,  in  one 
of  the  greatefl  and  moft  celebrated  chur- 
ches in  primitive  antiquity  :  upon  which 
the  learned  Stillingfleet  pleafantly  obferves, 
**  The  fucceffion  here  is  as  muddy  as 
Tyber  itfelf."  Nor  would  the.  remark 
Dr.  Cave  makes  upon  the  writers  of  the 

Romifh 


7o    CLEMENT   of  Rom£, 

Romifh  church,  be  lefs  pertinent,  if  we 
fhould  apply  it  to  thofe  of  the  Englifh  : 
"  They  are  (fays  he)  involved  in  an  in- 
extricable labyrinth  about  the  firft  four 
Bifhops  of  this  (the  Roman)  lee ;  fcarce 
two  of  them,  of  any  note,  bringing  in  the 
fame  account/*  And  after  all  that  has 
been,  or  can  be  faid,  perhaps,  there  is 
no  way  of  accommodating  this  matter, 
but  by  fuppofing  Linus,  Cletus,  and  Cle- 
ment to  be  Bifhops  of  Rome,  not  fuc-» 
ceffively,  but  at  the  fame  time  :  which, 
though  it  breaks  in  upon  the  unity  of  the 
Epifcopate,  gives  no  juft  occafion  for 
terror,  fince  the  old  maxim,  "  one  Bi- 
fhop  one  altar,"  does  not  appear  to  be 
facred  and  inviolable,  either  from  reafon, 
fcripture,or  antiquity. 

I  cannot  help  digrefling  fo  far  here, 
as  to  infert  a  few  words  from  the  judici- 
ous Dr.  Calamy.  "  If  (fays  he)  fuch  con- 
H  fufion  reigns  here,  (in  the  fucceflioii 
u  at  Rome)  where  one  would  apprehend 
"  the  matter  to  be  cleareft,  how  weak  is 
"  it  to  place  our  whole  dependance  on 
M  thefe  fort  of  tables  ?  How  poor  afoun- 
f<  dation  do  thofe  Gentlemen  chufe  to 
*'  build  upon,  who  lay  their  main  ftref3 

M  on 


CLEMENT  of  Roml    71 

st  on  their  derivation  from  the  Roman 
"  table,  in  proof  of  their  minifterial  au^- 
"  thority  ?  Were  it  not  a  thoufarid  times 
"  more  candid,  and  ingenuous,  to  confefs 
f*  we  are  in  the  dark, and  left  at  uncertain* 
"  ty,  than  to  make  pompous  boafts,  the 
"  ground  of  which  examined,  vanifh  from 
u  under  us  ?  Thefe  fort  of  pretences  to 
*'*  apoftolical  right,  and  apoftolical  tradi* 
"  tion,  backed  with  the  tables  of  fuc- 
u  ce(fion,in  the  feveral  churches,  make, 
"  I  coniefs,  a  mighty  noife,and  may  dazzle 
"  the  eyes  of  the  weak,  and  pals  for  a 
"  juftification  with  thofe  tnat  have  the 
"  civil  authority  on  their  fide,  which 
"  may  feem  to  give  them  validity  :  but 
"  they  difappear,  whenever  they  are'exa- 
"  mined  in  cold  blood,  and  viewed  na-» 
"  ked  as  they  are  themfelves.  When 
M  we  make  the  beft  of  them  we  can, 
"  Eufebius  is  the  main  author  that  we 
"  have  to  depend  on  for  the  credit  of 
"  thefe  tables.  And  his  account  of  the 
"  fucceflion,  in  the  feveral  churches,  is 
*'  made  up  moftly  of  conjectures  at  three 
"  hundred  years  diftance  from  apofto- 
"  lical  times,  vouched  by  uncertain  au- 
**  thors.  And  where  he  has  left  vacan- 
**  cies,  Nicephorus  Calliftus,  and  Simeoa 

h  '■■«  thp 


72    CLEMENT  of  Rome* 

"  the Metaph raft,  and  other  fuch  hiftori- 
"  cal  tinkers,-  as  Bifhop  Stillingfleet  plea- 
4<  fantly  calls  them,  have  taken  effectual 
*c  care  to  fill  them  up.— He  that  from 
u  the  blind,  broken,  and  uncertain  ta- 
*c  bles  of  fucceffion,  that  are  tranimitted 
*c  to  us  in  the  records  of  antiquity,  can 
*c  infer  theneceffity  of  epifcopal,  and  the 
"  invalidity  of  ptefbyterian  ordination, 
"  muft  either  have  a  ftrong  faith,  or  a 
f-  predominant  fancy.  If  they  cannot 
"  be  cleared,  it  is  vain  to  argue  from 
eC  them  :  but  if  they  can,  they  will  ferve 
4C  us  as  much  as  they  will  them,"  But 
to  return. 

Being  Bifhop  of  Rome,  he  was  a  con-* 
ftant,  laborious  preacher  of  the  word,  and 
difpenfer  of  gofpel  ordinances  to  that 
church.  For  this  is  the  moft  juft  and 
true  idea  of  a  faithful  Bifliop  or  Paftor 
in  primitive  times.  The  name  Bifhop 
was  not  then  looked  upon  fo  much  a  ti- 
tle of  honor,as  implying  in  it  great  watch- 
fulnefs,  labor  and  pains  :  and  this,  not 
in  "  infpe£Hng  and  governing  inferior 
clergymen/'  but  in  "  feeding  the  flock 
of  Chrift"  with  the  word  and  facraments. 
Nor  is  there  a  fa&  more  unqueftionably 

clear, 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.    73 

clear,from  the  whole  ftrain  of  primitive  an- 
tiquity,than  that  it  was  the  ftated,  known, 
perpetual  employment  of  all  that  were 
Bifhops,  to  exercife  themfelves  chiefly  in 
this  work.     And  this  true  fcripture  no- 
tion of  the  work  of  a  Bifhop,  was  fo  ge- 
nerally prevalent,  even  after  the  diftinc- 
tion  between  Bifhop  and  Preibyter  took 
place,   that  the  fourth  council    of  Car- 
thage came  into  fuch  a   decree  as    that^ 
tf   the     Bifhop     fhall     wholly     occupy 
himfelf  in  reading,and  praying,and  preach- 
ing the  word."      But  the  reader  that  has 
a  mind   to  fee  this   matter  indifputably 
cleared  up,  has  it  done  ready  to  his  hand 
by  that  wonder  of  learning,    the  great 
Jamefon,in  his "  Nazianzeni  Querela"  and 
his  "  Cyprianus  Ifotimus". 

It  is  common  in  modern  authors  to 
read  of  this  Clement  as  banifhed  from 
his  church,  and  at  laft  dying  a  mar- 
tyr for  the  caufe  of  Chrift  :  though 
thefe  things,  to  fay  the  lead",  are  mat- 
ters of  great  uncertainty.  None  of 
the  fathers  of  the  three  firft  centuries,that 
I  can  find,  make  mention  of  him  as  an 
exile,  or  martyr.  And  what  is  pretty 
extraordinary,  Eufebius,  who  is  common- 
ly very  particular  in  thefe  cafes,  is  whol- 
ly filent  upon  this  head.  If  we  may  de- 
pend 


74 


CLEMENT  of  Rom£. 


dfnd  on  the  credit  of  Cotelerius,  Ruffin, 
who  lived  in  latter  end  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, is  the  firfi:  that  fpeaks  of  him  as  ho- 
nored with  martyrdom.      After  him  in- 
deed Simeon  Metaphrases   has  exhibited 
to  the  world  a  moft  particular  and   for- 
mal account  of  his  '*  banifhment  to  Cher- 
fan  to  dig  in  the  marble  quarries  and  la- 
bor in  the  mines  ;  and  afterwards  of  his 
being  carried  and  thrown  into  the  bottom 
ofthefea."St.Ephrsemalfo,Bifhop  of  Cher- 
fan, relates  feveral  very  extraordinary  mira- 
cles, that  followed  upon  his  being  then  put 
todeath  :  but  thefe  are  authors  too  much 
given  to  the  romantic  ftrain  to  place  any 
dependance  on  •>  efpecially  in  matters  fo 
diitant  from  their  own  times,  about  which 
the  firft  fathers  are  wholly  filent.     Nor 
iS  it  much  to  the  honor  of  the  learned, 
and   otherwife  valuable,  Dr.   Cave,    that 
he  takes  fo  much  notice,  with   feeming 
faith,  of  thefe  and  fuch  like  plainly  fabu- 
lous relations  :  though  I  could  wifli,    he 
he  had  not,  upon  this  account,  been  quite 
fo  feverely  cenfured  by  my  Lord  Barring- 
ton,  when  he  fays  of  him,  u  that  he  has 
little  that  is  not  common  and  obvious,  be- 
fides   fome   idle    and  legendary    ftories, 
with  which  he  abounds. 

But 


CLEMENT  of  Rome 


75 


But  whatever  was  the  manner  of  his 
death,  Eufebius  places  it  m  the  third  of 
Trajan,  that  is,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  hundred,  after  he  had  been  Bifhop  of 
Rome  nine  years  :  which,  whether  it  be 
the  true  account,  I  leave  to  others  to 
determine. 

The  writings  that  go  under  the  name 
of  this  Clement  are  many,  and  may  be 
diftinguifh'd  into  genuine,  doubtful, 
and  supposititious, 

Genuine. 

In  this  rank  is  placed  that  excellent 
epiftle  to  the  Corinthians,  concerning 
which  the  great  Du-pin  has  dropped  that 
remark,"  next  to  the  holy  fcripture,it  is,in 
my  opinion,  one  of  the  moft  eminent  re- 
cords of  antiquity."  It  was  certainly  f^; 
accounted  by  the  primitive  fathers ;  who 
fcarce  mention  it  without  fome  epithet 
of  honor.  It  is  called  by  Irenaeus  (as 
Dr.  Cave  tranflates  the  phrafe)  "  the  moft 
excellent  and  abfolute  writing  ;"  by  Eu- 
febius "  the  truly  great  and  admirable 
epiftle  :"  and  what  the  fame  author  adds, 
Riay  further  affure  us  of  its  high  va- 
lue 


76     CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

luc  in  ancient  times." ;  this  epiftle 
we  have  known  to  have  been  publicly 
read  in  many  churches,  both  of  old,  and 
among  ourfelves  alfo."  Nor  is  it  unwor- 
thy obfervation,  that  the  only  copy  of 
this  epiftle,  known  in  the  world, was  found 
written  in  the  lame  volume  with  the  fa- 
cred  books  of  the  new-teftament  :  to 
which  happy  circumftance  we  may 
afcribe  it,  that  we  are  favored  with  it, 
after  it  had  been  bewailed  as  loft  for 
many  ages. 

The  manner  of  its  difcovery  and  pub- 
lication was  thus. When  Cyrill,  Pa- 
triarch of  Conftantinople,  returned  from 
his  Alexandrian  feat  in  Egypt,  he  brought 
with  him  a  large  colle£tion  of  books  $ 
among  which  was  an  ancient  copy  of  the 
old  and  new-teftament,  wrote  by  the 
hand  of  Thecla,  a  noble  Egyptian  virgin, 
about  the  time  of  the  firft  nicene  coun- 
cil. This  he  fent  as  a  prefent  to  King 
Charles  the  firft,  by  Sir  Thomas  Roe,  his 
Majefty's  then  Embaffador  at  the  Otto- 
man court,  upon  his  return  into  England. 
At  the  end  of  this  copy  was  added  this 
epiftle  of  Clement,  wrote  by  the  fame 
hand ;  though  fomething  broken  and  de- 
faced 5 


CLEMENT   of  Rome.     77 

faced:  which,  when  the  learned  Patrick 
Young,  his  Majefty's  library-keeper,  had 
difcovered,  he  was  commanded  by  the 
King,  to  make  it  public  ;  which  he  ac- 
cordingly did  at  Oxford,  in  the  year 
1633,  with  a  latin  tranflation,  and  learn- 
ed notes. 

The  occafion  of  Clement's  writing 
this  epiftle,  we  may  learn  from  Irenasus, 
v/ho  fays,  "  In  the  days  of  Clement,  the 
church  of  Rome  wrote  a  very  pathetical 
letter  [they  are  faid  to  have  wrote  it, 
though  it  was  penned  by  Clement,  be- 
caufe  it  was  wrote  and  fent  in  their  name] 
to  reftore  them  to  peace."  Eufebius  ex- 
hibits the  like  teftimony,  when  he  tells 
us,  "  that  Clement  wrote  this  epiftle 
from  Rome  to  Corinth,  when  fedition 
was  raifed  among  the  Corinthians/'  He 
adds  a  few  words  after,  "  that  there  was, 
at  that  time,  a  fedition  among  the  Co- 
rinthians, Hegefippus  is  a  witnefs.  Nor 
can  any  one  that  reads  this  epiftle  be  at  a 
lofs  as  to  the  truth  of  this.  It  is  plain, 
through  the  whole  of  it,  there  was  a  fhame- 
fuldifturbanceinthechurch;andthischief- 
ly  againft  its  Prefbyters  :  fome  of  the  peo- 
ple being  vainly  conceited  of  their  fpi- 

ritual 


7§    CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

ritual  gifts,  and  therefore  rifing  up  againft 
their  guides  and  teachers.  Now,  to  heal 
this  difference,  and  reftore  peace  and  good 
order,  this  epiflle  was  principally  defign- 
ed  ;  and  to  this  end  it  is  admirably  well 
adapted  :  being  wrote  in  a  plain  and  un- 
affecled  ftile ;  yet  with  great  ftrength  and 
perfpicuity,  and  evidently  breathing  the 
true  fpirit  and  genius  of  the  apoftolk  age. 

The  epiftle  is  wrote  in  the  nafrie  of 
the  church  of  Rome  to  the  church  of  Co- 
rinth :  upon  which  a  noted  author  per- 
tinently remarks,  "  Had  he  (Clement) 
known  himfelf  to  be  the  infallible  judge 
of  controverfies,  to  whofe  fentence  the 
whole  chriftian  world  was  bound  to  ftand, 
inverted  with  a  fupreme,  unaccountable 
power,  from  which  there  lay  no  appeal* 
we  might  have  expe&ed  to  hear  him  ar- 
gue at  another  rate."  And  as  there  is  no 
mention  in  this  epiftle  of  any  fingle  per- 
fon,  as  the  head  and  Governor  of  the  Co- 
rinthian church,  I  cannot  forbear  adding 
another  remark,  which  feems  full  as  na- 
tural ;  namely,  That  if  there  had  been, 
at  that  time,  at  the  head  of  this  church, 
an  ecclefiaftical  officer,  in  any  meafure, 
refembling  one  of  our  modern  Bifhops, 


CLEMENT  of  Rome,     79 

it  is  altogether  unaccountable,  how  both 
Clement  and  the  church  of  Rome  fhould 
treat  him  with  fuch  negle£t,  as  to  be  to- 
tally filent  about  him.  It  would  certain- 
ly look  ftrange,  and  be  refented  ill,  if 
one  of  our  prefent  Bifhops  fhould  be  fo 
fhamefully  overlooked  ;  his  church  com- 
plained of,  rebuked,  exhorted,  and  dire£t- 
ed  to  a  proper  method  of  peace  :  and  all, 
without  referring  the  matter  to  the  Bi- 
fhop,  or  indeed  taking  the  leaf!  notice  of 
him.—  But  of  this  we  may  hear  more 
afterwards. 

The  exa<9t  time,  when  this  epiftle  was 
wrote,  is  not  eafy  to  be  ftated  ;  as  we 
may  be  fully  fatisfied  from  the  difagree- 
ment  of  the  moft  learned  writers  on  this 
head.  Mr.  Young's  thought  is,  that  it 
was  wrote  about  two  years  before  his 
death,  in  the  time  that  he  fuppofes  him 
to  be  under  banifhment*  Dr.  Cave  fixes 
the  period  a  few  years  fooner,  a  little  af- 
ter the  Dioclefian  perfecution.  Vende- 
linus  places  it  in  the  year  95,  when  he 
apprehends  this  perfecution  was  at  its 
heighth.  Cotelerius  agrees  with  him  as 
to  the  year,  but  rather  thinks  the  perfe- 
cution was  drawing  to  an  end.  But  the 
M.  conje&ur? 


So    CLEMENT  of  RoSib; 

Conjecture  of  Grotius,  Dodwell,  Arch- 
Bifhop  Wake,  and  fome  others,  makes  it 
to  have  been  wrote  much  fooner  ;  be- 
tween the  latter  end  of  Nero's  reign, and  the 
deftruclionof  Jerufalenl,  that  is,  between 
the  years  64  and  70  -,  which  they  very 
ihuchground  on  that  paflageih  the  epiftle, 
where  they  fuppole  the  Jewifh  prieft- 
hood  and  Levitical  miniftrations  arefpo- 
ken  of  as  yet  continuing.— But  as  it  would 
be  a  going  too  far  out  of  my  way  to  con- 
lider  the  particular  reafons,  on  which 
thefc  conjectures  are  built,  I  have  barely 
referred  to  them,  without  pretending  to 
fay  which  are  moil  probable  :  but  leaving  it 
to  the  reader  to  examine  the  matter,  and 
determine  as  he  fees  fito 

The  only  colour  of  an  objection  againfl; 
the  genuinefs  of  this  epi(tle,is  taken  froni 
the  "  fable  of  the  phasnix,"  which  Cle- 
ment particularly  relates,  and  then  ufes 
to  reprefent  the  credibility  of  the  doctrine 
cf  the  refunection.  But  it  is  hot  wor- 
thy of  much  notice.  This  was  a  ftory, 
however  ridiculous,  generally  believed  in 
that  day,  by  the  learned  as  well  as  un- 
learned, both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  And  as 
the  account  of  that  "  bird's  reviving  out 

of 


CLEMENT  of  Rome,    8* 

qf  the  afhes  of  the  body  con.fumed  by 
fire,"  was  capable  of  being  improved  as 
an  illuftration  of  the  doctrine  of  the  re- 
furreftion,  where  is  the  great  abfurdity 
of  its  being  applied  to  this  purpofe  ?  And 
if  Clement" had  himfelf  really  believed  this 
ftory,  being  too  far  carried  away  with 
the  prevailing  opinion,  what  greater  in- 
firmity  would  it  argue,  than  the  belt  and 
moft  valuable  men  always  have  been,  and 
now  are,  fubjedt  to,  *      ^ 

Grotius's  thoughts  concerning  this 
epiftle,  in  his  letter  toBign©rius,are  worth 
tranferibing  here.  V  I  have  (fays  he)  read 
it  over  and  over  again,  with  the  utmofl 
care  and  diligence,  and  cannot  think  any 
Qther,than  that  it  is  the  fame  epiftle  which 
Photius  read  :  in  whofe  day,  fince  it  was 
in  being,  it  is  not  wonderful,  it  has 
teen  preferved  to  our's,  among  the  facred 
writings.  Neither  fee  I  any  reafon,  ei- 
ther why  the  epiftle  which  Photius  read, 

fliould 


f  The  learned  reader,  that  is  curious,,  may  be  gratified  by 
reading  what  is  fajdj  upon  the  "  fhble  of  the  phaenix," 
to  filence  the  objections  againft  this  epiftle  of  Clement, 
on  account  of  his  making  ufe  of  it,  in  the  notes  in  the 
body  of  the  epiftle,  and  in  the  prefixed  judgment  of 
.  fome  of  the  greateft  antiquaries,  as  they  may  be  feen  iiz- 
Le  Clere's  edition  of  Cotelerius's  "  apoftolical  Fathers/  i 


82    CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

/hould  not  be  the  fame  which  Jerom 
had,  and  before  him  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria, and  Irenaeus,  yet  nearer  to  the  time 
of  Clement  of  Rome  :  or  why  we  fhould 
afcribe  it  to  any  other,  than  Clement  of 
Rome  himfelf ;  fince  this  has  been  hand- 
ed down  to  us,  with  fo  great  and  unlver- 
ial  confent."  To  which!  would  only  add, 
there  is  no  one  ancient  piece,  we  have 
greater  reafon,  both  from  its  internal  cha- 
rafter,  and  external  evidence,  to  depend 
upon  as  genuine.  It  is  perhaps  the  moft 
frequently  quoted,  by  the  more  primi- 
tive Fathers,  of  any  uninfpired  book  •, 
between  all  which  quotations,  and  the 
prefent  copy  of  this  epiftle,  there  is  a  won- 
derful agreement.  And  it  carries  in  it 
none  of  thole  marks  of  impoftor  that  are 
to  be  met  with,  in  fome  other  pieces  ; 
and  thefe  too,  palmed  upon  even  this  ve- 
ry Clement :  but  every  thing  is  delivered 
both  as  to  matter,  and  manner,  as  rpight 
be  expefted  from  one  that  lived  in  the 
apoftolic  age,  and  was  a  worthy  faithful- 
laborer  in  the  vineyard  of  Chrifl. 

Doubtful. 

In  this  clafs  I  place  the  "  fecond   epif- 
tle to  the  Corinthians,"  afcribed  to  this 

Clementi 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.     83 

Clement.  It  is  unqueftionably  an  an- 
cient piece  ;  and  as  it  contains  a  pious 
exhortation  to  an  holy  life,  without  the 
mixture  of  any  thing,  that  I  at  prefent 
remember,  unbecoming  the  character  of 
Clement,  or  diftbnant  from  the  age  in 
which  he  lived,  I  fee  no  reafon  abfolutely 
to  condemn  it  as  fuppofititious. 

As  the  known  ecclefiaftical  hiftorian 
fpeaks  of  the  firft  epiftle  as  the  only  un- 
doubted one,  and  declares  concerning  the 
fecond,  what  appears,  even  to  this  day,  to 
be  tact,  that  it  was  "  neither  ufed,  nor 
alledged,  by  the  ancient  writers  ;h  if  we 
may  not,  with  Jerom  and  Photius,  plain- 
ly reject  it,  we  may,  at  leaft,  put  it  up 
on  the  foot  of  uncertain  authority. — 
But  I  need  not  fay  any  more,  there  being 
extant  only  a  fragment  of  this  epiftle ;  in 
which  we  meet  with  nothing  that  bears 
relation  to  the  prefent  controverfy. 

Spurious. 

The  pieces  of  this  fort,  afcribed  t*' 
Clement,  as  their  author,  or  the  penman 
of  others,  are  the  «  apoftolical  conftitu- 
lions,"  the    "    apoftolical   canons,"   the 

11  recognitions/' 


84    CLEMENT    of  Rome. 

f*  recognitions," the  "Clementines"  with 
the"  prefixt  epiftle  of  Clement  to  James," 
r;nd  the  "  epitQme  of  the  afts  of  Peter." 

As  to  the  ponftitutioris ;  Mr.  Whifton, 
the  lateft  patron  of  them,  has  given 
them  the  moft  facred  character ;  pre- 
tending, that  they  are  the  work  of  even 
the  whole  body  of  the  Apoftles,  and  pen- 
ned by  Clement  as  their  amanuenfis  : 
than  which,  perhaps,  there  never  was  an 
opinion  attended  with  more,  or  greater 
gbfurdities.  It  is  obvious  to  all,  in  any 
meafure,  verled  iri  the  ancient  wri- 
tings, that  there  is  a  total  filence  of  all 
primitive  antiquity  about  t{iefe  constitu- 
tions. And  however  Mr.  Whifton's 
authorities  out  of  the  fathers  have  fwel- 
led  even  into  a  vojume,  yet  that  they 
are  only  a  vaft  heap  of  mifapplications 
is  fo  evident,  that  no  one,  io  far  as  I 
can  learn,  has  ever  thought  it  wrorth  while 
to  be  at  the  pains  to  take  them  out' of 
that  ftrangly  falfe  light,  in  which  he  has 
placed  them  :  nor  is  there  any  need  of 
ir,  there  being  enough  in  the  books  them- 
felves  to  make  it  clearly  evident,  that  no 
one  of  the  apoftles  had  any  hand  in  writ- 
ing them  3  yea,  that  they  n.ever  were  in 

being. 


CLEMfeNT  of  Rome.    85 

being,  at  leaft  as  we  now  have  them,  un- 
til tlie  church  of  Ciirift  was  gone  far  in- 
to corruption  and  degeneracy.  A  few  of 
thole  many  things,  which  are  open  to 
every  one's  observation,  upon  the  bare 
reading  of  them,  and  that  are  fufficient 
indications  of  this,  t  fhall  here  infert. 

The  manner  in  which  they  fpeak  of 
Bifhops  is  very  extraordinary.  They 
represent  them  as  "  bearing  the  character 
of  God  among  men  ;"  as  "  fet  over  all 
men,  Prielts,  Kings,  princes,  fathers,  fons, 
mailers,  and  all  that  are  fubjeft  to  them." 
They  command  them  to  "  judge  with 
like  authority  as  God  himfelf."  They 
call  the  Bifhop,  "  the  minifter  of  the 
word,  the  keeper  of  knowledge,  the  me- 
diator between  God  and  his  people  in  re- 
ligious worfhip,  the  mafter  of  piety,  next 
linto  God,  the  chriftian'i  father,  his 
Prince,  Governor,  King,  Potentate;"  and 
declare,  that  he  is  to  be  "  honor'd  next  to 
God  as  an  earthly  God."  They  fpeak  of 
Bifhops/as  thofe  that  are  to  be  "venerated 
and  honoured  with  all  kind  of  honor  ;" 
as  thofe  who  have  "  received  from  God 
the  power  of  life  and  death,  in  judging 
finners,  and  condemning  them  to  eter- 
nal 


86     CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

nal  flames,  and  abfolving  thofe  who  are 
converted."  They  exhort  the  people  to 
"  reverence  their  Bifhops  as  Kings,  and 
to  honor  them  as  their  Lord." 

This  is  a  tafte  of  the  fpirif,  and 
ftile,  in  which  Bifhops  are  here  fpoken 
of;  between  which,  and  the  ftile  and 
fpirit  of  the  truly  apoftolical  writings, 
upon  the  fame  fubje^  there  cannot  be  a 
greater  contrariety.  Let  a  man  read, 
over  and  over  again, the  genuine  writings 
of  the  apoftles,  and  he  fhall  ever  find 
what  they  fay  concerning  Bifhops,  to  be 
delivered  in  plain  fimple  language,  per- 
fectly fuitedto  thefpiritual  nature  of  that 
kingdom  of  Chrift,  in  which  they  are  of- 
ficers :  whereas,  thefe  "  conftitutions"  fo 
ftrangely  differ  from  the  apoftolic  genius, 
that,  if  the  writings  of  the  moft  corrupt 
ages  be  looked  into,  we  fhall  not  be  able 
to  find  in  them  any  expreffions,  more 
unboundedly  aggrandifing  Bifhops,  and 
claiming  for  them  higher  degrees  of  ho- 
nor and  reverence. 

And  if  we  turn  to  the  epiftle  of  Cle- 
ment, the  pretended  amanuenfis  of  the 
Apoftles,   we  fhall  find  as  great  a  diflb- 

nancy 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.    87 

nancy  between  that,  and  thefe  conftitu- 
tions  :  which  is  truly  wonderful,  if  he 
had  fuch  an  intimate  acquaintance  with 
them,  as  he  muft  have  had,  if  he  was  the' 
penman  of  them.  Nor  can  it,  in  any  ra- 
tional way,  be  accounted  for,  that, in  wri- 
ting to  the  Corinthians,  he  fhould  whol- 
ly pafs  by  this  moft  valuable  and  canoni- 
cal part  of  facred  fcripture,  (as  it  muft 
certainly  be,  if,  as  is  faid,  it  was  compo- 
fed  by  the  whole  body  of  Apoflles)  which 
yet  he  does  ;  and  this,  when  it  was  far 
better  adapted  toanfwer  the  d'efign  of  his 
"  epiftle,"  than  all  the  other  books  of  the 
new-teftament  put  together.  For  here, 
the  boundaries,  not  only  between  Bi- 
fhops  and  Prefbyters,  but  between  Pref- 
byters  and  Laics,  are  moft  punctually 
fixed  ;  their  duty  to  them  prefcribed, 
their  obedience  fecured ;  and,  in  a  word, 
the  whole  controverfy  among  the  Corin- 
thians, the  occafion  of  Clement's  writing 
to  them,  intirely  fettled.  And  yet,  he 
takes  not  the  leaft  notice  of  thefe  "  con- 
ftitutions,"  though,  from  the'  mouth  of 
the  Apoftles,  he  had  penned  them;  while, 
at  the  fame  time,  he  makes  great  ufe  of 
the  books  both  of  the  old  and  new-tefta- 
tnent,  to  fetch  in  arguments  to  his  pur- 
fofe,        But  to  proceed, 

N  In 


'88    CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

In    thejfe    "   conftitutions,"    we   have 
forms  of  prayer  prefcribed  for  a  great  va- 
riety of  occasions  :  particularly  for  both 
facraments,    "    baptifm    and  the   Lord's 
fupper  ;"  for  the  "  ordination  of  Bifhops, 
Prefbyters,    Deacons,    Readers,  Singers," 
and  fo  on*      But  that  thefe  were,  any  of 
them,  ever  ufed  in  the  primitive  church, 
there   are  no  footfteps  in  antiquity  :  nor 
is  there  the  leaft  reference  made  to  them, 
by   any  truly  ancient  Father,  upon  any 
occafion  i  which  is  altogether  unaccoun- 
table, if,  as  is  pretended,  they  were  com- 
pofed,  even  by  the  whole  body  of  Apof- 
tles ;  and  this,  purpofely  for  the  ufe  of 
the  chriftian  churcn, 

Wfc  here  read  of  the  ufe  of  u  oyl  in 
baptifm  "  nor  is  it  allowed  to  be  valid 
without  a  prayer  for  the  efficacy  of  it 
on  the  baptifed  perfon  :  and  he  is  repre- 
sented, without  this  prayer,  as  "  de- 
scending into  the  water  to  no  better  pur- 
pofe  than  a  meer  Jew  {*  and  as  "  warning 
off  the  defilements  of  his  body,  but  not  of 
his  foul." 

We  have  here  prefcribed  an  "  office 
for  the  dead  ;"  in  which  fupplication  is 

made 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.    89 

Siade  for  the  deceafed,  that  God  would 
"pardon  his  fins,  both  involuntary  and 
voluntary,  and  receive  his  foul  to  be 
with  Abraham,  Ifaac^  and  Jacob/' 

We  are  here  commanded  to  attend 
"  prayer  at  church,"  not  only  daily, 
but  no  iefs  than  "  fix  times  a  day  jM 
the  particular  feafbns  for  which,  toge^ 
ther  with  the  trifling  reafons  on  which 
they  are  grounded,  are  all  particularly 
fpecified* 

Particular  care  is  here  taken  about 
the  "  form  and  fituation  of  churches  ;" 
an  appointment  made,  that  they  (hall 
be  M  oblong  and  facing  the  eaft."  Mag- 
nificence in  churches  is  alfo  commanded, 
the  <g  Bifhops  throne"  adjufted,  the  place 
where  he  is  to  ftand  appointed,  namely, 
"  the  altar  ;"  where  he  muft  appear 
clothed  with  a  "  fliining  fplendid  vefi> 
ment  :"  and  before  he  begins  prayer,  he 
is  ordered,  in  the  fight  of  all  the  people, 
"  to  make  upon  his  forehead  the  fign  of 
the  crofs."  The  Deacons  are  command- 
ed to  wait  on  each  fide  of  the  altar,  with 
a  "  fan  in  their  hands  made  of  thin 
membranes,  or  the  feathers  of  a  peacock, 


1 


9o    CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

or  of  fine  cloth,  to  drive  away  the  fmall 
animals  from  the  facramental  cups."  A 
very  minute  account  is  alio  exhibited  of 
"  places  to  fit  in"  in  churches,  and  the 
"junior  ordered  to  be  turned  of  his 
place,"  if  he  does  not  yield  it  to  a  "  more 
honorable  ftranger  f  together  with  other 
like  inftances  of  ceremony  and  good 
manners. 

We  are  here  directed  to  "  obferve  days 
in  honor  to  deceafed  faints  ;"  to  accom- 
pany "  their  funerals  with  finging,"  and 
to  "  affemble  in  the  dormitories  of  the 
martyrs,  and  there  to  celebrate  the  holy 
eucharift." 

Particular  mention  is  here  made 
of  "  Sub-deacons,  Readers,  Singers,  Con- 
feflbrs,  Porters,  Minifters,  Virgins,  Ex- 
ercifts,"as  bearing  office  inthechurch. 
We  read  alfo  of  "  Energumens,  Cate- 
chumens," together  with  a  great  num- 
ber of  "  fafts  and  feafts,"  and  a  deal 
more  fuch  trumpery,  which  was  abfo- 
folutely  unknown  in  the  apoftolic  age ; 
but  vifible  enough  in  the  church,  in 
after  days,  when  fhe  had  become  f uper- 
ftitious  and  corrupt.    And  this  I  fhould 

now; 


CLEMENT  of  Rome..    91 

now  particularly  and  largely  have  fhewn, 
but  that  I  muft  have  taken  confiderable 
pains,  in  my  own  apprehenfion,  to  little 
purpofe  j  not  doubting,  but  the  bare  nar- 
rative of  the  above  articles  will  be  thought 
by  moft,  a  full  juftification  of  thofe,  who 
difcard  all  pretence  to  thefe  books,  as 
apoftolically  compofed. 

This  opinion  then  being  thrown  afide, 
it  is  not  eafy  to  conceive  of  thefe  "  con*, 
ftitutions"  in  their  prefent  form,  as  any 
other,  than  the  work  of  fome  very  bold  and 
impudent  impoftor  ;  fince  he  perfonates 
the  Apoftles  with  all  freedom  -,  fpeakingiti 
the  name,  fometimes  of  one,  fometimes 
of  another,  and  fometimes  of  them  all  : 
with  the  greateft  folemnity  and  formali- 
ty commanding  this  thing,  and  prohibit- 
ing another.  Inftances  of  this  are  fo  fre- 
quently to  be  met  with,  that  it  is  needlefs 
to  adduce  any.  And  it  demonftrably 
argues,  that  the  author  was  a  vile  cheat, 
and  ought  accordingly  to  be  fo  thought  of. 

As  to  the  time  in  which  thefe  books 
may  be  fuppofed  to  come  abroad  in  the 
world,  I  know  of  none  (thofe  few  excep- 
ted who  plead  for  them  as  penned   by 

Clement) 


9z    CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

Clement)  who  pretend  to  fix  the  period 
higher  than  the  latter  end  of  the  fecond,or 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  *  But 
whether  thofe,  who  thus  fix  the  time, 
are  in  the  right  ;  or  others,  who  bring  it 
down  to  the  fourth  or  fifth  century,  I 
fhali  not  difpute.  Probably,  they  were 
not  complete,  as  we  now  have  them,  at 
once ;  but  have  been,  from  time  to  time, 
correifited,  altered,  augmented,  according 
fo  the  various  cuftoms  of  different  ages 
$nd  countries. 

Mr.  Whifton  pretends  the  fame  of  the 
"  canons5'  that  he  does  of  the  conftitu- 
tions  ;  that  they  were  wrote  by  Clement, 
as  the  work  of  the  whole  apoftolic  body  ; 
but  there  does  not  appear  any  reafon,  why 
the  fame  judgment  fliould  not  be  paffed 

up©n 

*  Bifliop  Beveridge  has  expended  no  fmall  labor  to  give 
date  to  thefe  "  conftitutions,''  about  the  clofe  of  the  fe- 
cond,  or  the  beginning  of  the  thirdcentury  :  but  to  no  va- 
luable purpofe.  For,  fhould  it  be  even  allowed,  that 
they  were  then  in  being,  it  is  abfolutely  certain,  they  are 
not  now,  as  they  muft  have  been  then.  And,  unlefs 
fome  way  could  be  pointed  out  (which  has  never  yet  been 
done)  to  diftinguifh  the  original  contents,  from 
the  multiplicity  of  corruptions  that  have 
crept  into  them,  they  can  be  of  no  real  fervice  ;  a$ 
there  is  no  knowing  what  is  genuine,  and  what  the 
work  of  fenfdds and  knavifli  iktekpolaoris.    , 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.     93 

upon  them,that  wehave  given  of  the  con-* 
ftitutions,  in  point  of  their  being  apofto- 
lically  compofed.  As  for  rnyfelf,  nothing 
more  was  needful  to  convince  me  of  this, 
after  I  had  once  read  them  :  fo  many  of 
them  being  either  trifling  in  themfelves, 
or  inconnftent  with  the  truly  apoftolicai 
writings,  or  containing  fuch  things  as 
were  not  known  in  the  church  until  ages 
after  the  apoftles.  I  fliall  not  think  it 
beyond  my  defign,  to  prefent  here  to  the 
reader's  view  a  few  of  them. 

Can,  II.  "  If  any  Bifliop  or  Prefbyter, 
befides  what  our  Lord  has  appointed  for 
facrifice,  fhall  offer  upon  the  altar  other 
things ;  as  honey,  or  milk,  or  cyder  in- 
ftead  of  wine,  or  things  made  by  the 
confedioner,  or  birds,  or  animals,  or 
pulfe  :  let  him  be  depofed.  Excepting 
ears  of  corn,  or  grapes,  it  is  not  lawful 
to  offer  any  thing  upon  the  altar,  fave 
only  oyl  for  the  holy  lamp,  and  incenfe 
of  thyme  in  divine  oblation."  Thofe 
who  are  in  the  leaft  acquainted  with  the 
writings  of  the  apoftolic  age,  and  the  af- 
ter corrupt  ages  of  the  church,  can  be 
at  no  lofs  to  determine,  in  which  of  thefe 
ages,  it  is  moft  likely,  this  canon  fliould 

be 


94     CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

be  formed.  And  the  curious  reader,  that 
will  be  at  the  pains  to  run  over  the  learn- 
ed DodwelFs  "  book  of  incenfe,"  cannot 
well  help  being  fatisfied,  particularly  as 
to  the  article  of  offering  incenfe,  that  it 
was  abfolutely  unknown  in  the  church, 
for  fome  ages  after  the  death  of  the 
Apoftles. 

Can.  V.  "  If  any  Bifhop,  Prefbyter, 
or  Deacon,  fliall  celebrate  with  the  Jews, 
the  holy  day  of  eafter  before  the  vernal 
aequinox,  let  him  be  depofed."  The 
controverfy  between  theeaftern  and  wef- 
tern  churches,  about  the  time  of  keeping 
eafter,  that  happened  in  the  fecond  cen- 
tury, long  after  the  death  of  the  Apoftles, 
might,  by  this  canon,  have  been  fettled  : 
and  yet,  in  the  whole  management  of  this 
difpute,  (which  was  prodigioufly  fierce)  it 
was  never  once  appealed  to,  nor  the  leaft 
hint  given,  by  either  party,  as  if  any  fuch 
canon  was  in  being  :  which  is  certain- 
ly a  very  ftrange  thing,  if,  before  this  dif- 
pute, this  cannon  had  been  made,  and 
committed  to  writing  by  direction  from 
the  Apoftles  :  efpecially  confidering,  the 
chief  'managers  of  this  difpute  were  the 
Paftors  of  the  feverai  churches,  the  moit 

learned 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.    55 

jearned  and  famous  among  them  ;  who 
ttiuft  have  known  of  this  canon,  if  it 
had  been  in  being  ;  and  cannot  be  fup- 
pofed  not  to  have  made  ufe  of  it,  fince 
it  was  an  apoftolical  one,  and  muft  at 
once  have  ended  the  controverfy. 

Can.  XVII.  "  Forbids  any  one's  being 
riiade  a  Clergyman,  who  hath  made  him- 
felf  an  euriuch  ;  and  commands  every 
Clergyman,  who  hath  fo  made  hiriifelf, 
to  be  depofed  :  and,  if  he  be  a  Laic,  to  be 
Separated  for  three  years  ;"  which  looks 
too  much  like  the  production  of  after  ages, 
when  this  practice  becariie  fo  common,  as 
to  need  fome  reftraints  to  be  laid  upon 
it,  to  be  admitted  for  apoftolical. 

Can.  XIX.  "  Of  thofe  who  were  fin- 
gle  perfons,  when  they  were  made  Cler- 
gymenj  we  command^  that  only  Readers 
and  Singers  may  take  wives. "  A  perfoti 
can  fcarce  read  this  canon,  without  turn- 
ing his  thoughts  to  a  fcripture  paflage, 
which  founds  as  if,  by  fpecial  foreknow- 
ledge, it  had  been  purpofely  inferted,  to 
confront  the  authority  of  thefe  and  fuch 
like  decrees.  Says  one  of  the  Apoftles 
of  our  Lord*  "  Now  the  '-fpirit  fpeaketh 
Q  exprefllyj 


96    CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

expreflly,  that  in  the  latter  times,   fomc 
fhall   depart    from   the  faith,— forbid- 

ING   TO    MAURY." 

Can.  XXVll.  ci  Subjefts  allBifhops, 
of  every  province,  to  one  that  is  firft  a- 
mong  them*  or  the  Metropolitan."  But 
as  nothing  is  more  clearly  evident,  than 
that  Metropolitans  were  not  known,  in 
the  church,  until  ages  after  the  Apoftlesj 
to  thefe  times  this  canon  ought  to  be 
referred. 

I  si* all  only  add  two  or  three  rrioreca-* 
lions,  which  feem  to  be  of  trifling  con- 
fideration,  and  not  to  merit  a  formal 
decree  of  the  whole  body  of  Apoftles. 

Can.  L&IX.  "  If  any  Clergyman  hath 
laughed  at  one  that  is  dumb,  or  blind,  or 
lame  in  his  feet,  let  him  be  feparated  :  fo 
&lfo  let  the  Layman." 

Can.  LXX.  "  If  any  one  hath  a 
devil,  he  may  not  be  made  a  Clergyman : 
nor  may  he  pray  with  the  faithful." 

Cai*.  LXXI.  "  Me  that  is  deaf,  dumfc, 
§r  blind,  let  him  not  be  made  a  Bifhop." 

Haying 


CLEMENT  of  Rome,    97 

Having  thus  offered  what  may  be 
thought  iufficient  to  evince  the  ahfurdi- 
,ty  of  that  opinion,  which  makes  thcfe 
canons  the  compofure  of  the  Apcfties,  I. 
(hall  not  be  fo  much  concerned  to  inquire 
into  other  things  of  lefs  importance. 
Who  the  author  of  thefe  canons  was,  is 
a  matter  of  the  greateU  uncertainty.  But 
whether  he  was  an.  irnpoftor,  that  defign- 
ed  to  impofe  upon,  the  world,  by  putting 
then}  forth  under  the  narne  of  the  Apof- 
ties  ?  or  whether  they  are  only  the  de- 
crees of  ancient  councils  collected  toge- 
ther in  this  form,  by  fome  perfon  or  per- 
sons of  honeft  intention  $  and  filled  apof- 
tolical,  not  as  if  they  had  been  made  by 
the  Apoftles,  but  as  containing  things, 
in  their  ^pprehenfion,  confonant  to  the 
rules  delivered  by  the  Apoftles;  or  as  made 
Up  of  ufagesand  traditions  fqppofed,  tops 
handed  down  from  them  :  J  fay,  whether 
of  thefe  opinions  are  the  trued,  I  flaall  not 
at  prefent  debate.  Nor  is  it  a  matter 
agreed  on,  when  thefe  canons  firft  made 
their  appearance  in  the  world.  Man- 
fieur  D'aille  does  not  allow  them  3ny  be- 
ing, until  towards  the  fifth  century  ;  in 
oppoiition  whereto,  Bifhop  Beveridge  has 
ranfac^ed  all  antiquity   to  confirm   the 

opinion. 


98    CLEMENT   of  Rome, 

opinion,  that  they  ought  to  be  placed 
in  the  third  century.  But  inftead  of 
examining  the  arguments  of  thefe  au- 
thors to  know  which  are  in  the  right,  I 
rhall  rather  obferve  concerning  both  the 
apoftolical  cohftitutions,  and  canons,  as 
a  conclufion  of  what  I  (hall  offer  about 
them, 

That  however  thofe  learned  writers, 
who  have  given  the  world  their  thoughts 
about  thefe  books,  may  differ  in  matters 
6f  fmaller  importance  ;  as  the  time,  man- 
ner, and  occafion  of  their  being  wrote  i 
tet,  with  great  unanimity,  they  rejett 
them  as  the  work  of  infpired  Apoftles. 
And  indeed,  Mr.  Whifton  (depending  on 
the  credit  of  Dr.  Smallbroke)  is  the  firft 
perfon,  either  ancient  or  modern,  fo  far 
as  we  are  informed  by  eccleflaftical  hif- 
tory,  that  ever  had  this  opinion^of  them  5 
*'  Evert  Bovius,  and  Turrianus,  (to  ufe 
4t  the  language  of  that  author)  who 
u  firft  recommended  the  conftitutions  to 
"  the  learned  world,  how  vainly  foever 
"  they  fpent  their  time  in  writing  forced 
*'  and  unnatural  apologies  for  them, 
u  were  not  fo  fond  of  novelty,  as  to  fup- 
u  pofc  they  were  tr^ly  apoftolical,  and 

tf  the 


ELEMENT  of  Rome.    || 

'*  the    product    of    divine    infpiration. 
*f  Much  lefs  did  they   ever  dream  of  fa 
'?  high  a  degree  of  infpiration,  as  renders 
V  them  (accqrdingto  Mr.  Whifton)  more 
*f  facred  than  the  authentic  gofpels  them- 
•/  felves.    All  that  they  pretended  to  af-* 
"  fert   was,  that  Clemens  Romanus  had 
"  collected    fome  apoftolical   traditions, 
"  which  he  formed  into  the  eight  books 
•'  of  conftitutions,    then    retrieved    and 
"  published  by  them.      They,  therefore, 
"  agreably    to   their    hypothefis,    weak 
and  precarious  as   it   was,  labored   to 
eftablifh  the   antiquity  of  the  confti- 
tutions, as  a  body  of  ecclefiaftical  dif- 
cipline  ;   bijt  expreflly   difclaimed   all 
pretenfiqns  tQ  divine  authority,  or  to 
their  being  a  facred  rule  of  life  and 
i  manners."      He  goes  on  in   a  man- 
ner  that    I   fliall    think    worth    trans- 
cribing  ;  ft  Indeed  their    principal  de- 
u  fign    was  to  oppofe   thofe  of  the  re- 
?'  formation  by  thern.  And  that  it  was  io, 
ft  both  thofe  warm  patrons  of  the  con- 
**  ftitutions   very   frankly   acknowledge, 
K  Bovius,  who  tranflated  them  firft  into 
f  latin,  and  commented  upon  them,  de- 
f*  dicated  his  work  to  the  Pope's  legates 
f1  ;hat  prefided  in  the  council  of  Trent  ; 

"  In 


n 


€( 


I  op  CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

41  In  the  epiftle  dedicatory  to  whom,  he 
«c  acquaints  us,  that,  upon  a  recital  of 
"  fome  paflag  es  of  the  Clementine  con- 
«  flitutiqns,  at  a  meeting  of  the  fathers 
"  of  the  council  of  Trent,  thofe  paf- 
.«  fages  were  thought  fo  very  ferviceable 
£  to  what  was  there  tranfaQing  in  tfcatfy- 
H  nod,as  togive  thefirft  hint  to  the  publica- 
ft  tion  of  the  whole  body  of  the  conftituti- 
w  ons.  After  which,  Boyius  aflerts,  that 
"  there  is  fcarce  any  thing  that  is  oppofedby 
<*  theHeretics,thatis,  Proteftants,  asrcrept 
#  into  the  church  by  error  and  fuper- 
*(  ftition,  but  may  be  defended  by  the 
"  authority  of  thefe  constitutions,  and 
"  fhewn  to  be  of  primitive  antiquity. 
<•  Turrianus,  likewife,  who  made  thefe 
'<  conftitutions  a  considerable  part  of  his 
"  ftudies,  affures  us,  that  they  were 
"  thought  very  beneficial  to  the  church, 
"  that  is,  the  church  of  Rome,  by  the 
"  cenfors  of  books  in  the  council  of 
"  Trent -,  and  that  their  mofl  grave  and 
"  weighty  judgment  of  them  was  fealed, 
"  and  laid  up  at  Rome,  in  the  public 
"  records  of  the  inquifition.  Again,  he 
u  affirms,that  nothing  of  antiquity  could 
"  be  publifhed  more  proper  for  that  age, 
"  and  better  adapted  to  the  confutation 

m  of 


CLEMENT  of  RoMt,   itfi 

"  of  thofe  innovators,  the  Proteftants." 
He  adds,  "That  thefe  books  were  pro- 
?  videntially  publifhed  in  that  age,  when 
P  there  was  the  greateft  occafion  for 
jf*  them,  as  witneffes  againft  thofe  of 
f?  the  reformation  :  (at  whom  he  rails 
"  very  plentifully)  and  that  it  feemed, 
4t  nothing  mere  was  either  wanting,  or 
"  could  be  expe&ed  for  their  convicti- 
"  on.  That  thefe  books  were  fent  by 
"  God  to  triumph  over  thefe  Protef- 
"  tants,  and  to  fhew  the  world  how  juft- 
"  ly  they?,  were  condemned  in  the  coun- 
*  cil  of  Trent," 

Dr.  Smallbroke  adds,  the  reafon  that 
he  tranfcribed  thefe  paffages  from  Bovius 
and  Turrianus  was,  "  That  the  reader 
"  might  be  rightly  informed  of  theavow- 
u  cd  defign  of  publifhing  the  Clementine 
u  conftitutions,  even  the  confutation  of 
"  the  reformed  religion,"  And  I  have 
thus  tranfcribed  the  paffages  from  him, 
becaufe  he  ftiles  himfelf  "  Canon-Refi- 
dentiary  of  Hereford*  Treafurer  of  the 
clrurch  of  Landaff,  and  Chaplain  to  his 
Grace,  the  Lord  Arch-Bifhop  of  Can- 
terbury*" 

Tm 


id*  CLEMENT  of  Rome; 

The  next  piece,  that  prefects  itfelf 
under  the  name  of  Clement,  is  the  "  re- 
cognitions," as  in  the  tranfla'tion  of  Ruf- 
iin.  But  it  is  fo  empty  of  every  thing 
favoring  of  the  fimplicity  of  the  firft  ana 
pure  ages  of  chriftianity,  and  fo  full  of 
fable,  and  feigned  conferences  about  fate, 
and  the  influence  of  the  ftars,  and  hea- 
venly conftellations,  and  fu'ch  like  ridi- 
culous ftoff,  that  it  is  univerfally  placed 
below  the  time  of  Clement,  as  altogether 
unworthy  of  him„- 

And  the  fame  may  be  /aid  of  the  other 
writings,  we  have  mentioned  under  the 
head  of  fuppofititious,  if  indeed  they  may 
be  allowed  to  be  called  different  ones, 
The  "  Clementines'*  are  thought,  by  fome, 
to  be  that  "  other  edition  of  the  recog- 
nitions," Ruffift  mentions  in  his  preface' 
to  Gaudentius,  prefixed  to  the  recogni- 
tions he  made  a  verfion  of  :  fince  they 
fo  exactly  agree  with  the  character  he 
there  gives  of  them,  differing  in  fome 
things  from  that  he  tranflated,  but  the 
fame  in  many.  And  for  the  "  epitome 
of  the  a<5ts  of  Peter,"  Dr.  Cave  calls  it 
"  a  third  edition  of  the  recognitions  ,"  oc 
rather  an  »  abftraft  pf  both  the  recog- 
nitions 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   103 

nitions  and  Clementines/'  though  keep- 
ing  more  clofely  to  the  latter.  But  whe- 
ther thefe  are  different  compofitions,  or 
only  one  and  the  fame  piece,  fomething 
varied  and  differently  modelled,  it  mat- 
ters not ;  fo  long  as  we  have  the  con- 
currence of  the  main  body  of  the  learned 
world  in  throwing  them  afide  as  evident- 
ly fuppofititious. 

Testimonies    from    Clement's    firft 
epiftle  to  the  Corinthians. 

The  inscription  to  the  epiftle. 

"  The  church  of  God  which  is  at  Rome, 
\e paroikoufa  Romen]  to  the  church  of 
God  which  is  at  Corinth,  \$ paroikoufa 
Korintkori]  elefr,  fan&ified,  by  the  will 
©fGod,  through  JefusChrift  our  Lord  : 
grace  and  peace  from  theAlmightyGod, 
by  Jefus  Chrift,  be  multipled  unto  you." 

Brethren, 

THE  fudden  and  unexpefled  dangers 

and    calamities    that   have  fallen  upon 

us,   have,  we  fear,   made  us   the   more 

flow  in  our  confideration  of  thofe  things 

P  which 


104  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

which  you  inquired  of  us  ;  as  alfo  of 
that  wicked  and  deteftable  sedition,  fo 
unbecoming  the  elect  of  God,  which  a 
few  heady  and  felf-willed  men  have  fo- 
mented to  iuch  a  degree  of  madnefs,  that 
your  venerable  and  renowned  name,  fo 
worthy  of  all  men  to  be  beloved,  is  greatly 
blafphemed  thereby.  For  who  that  has 
ever  been  among  you,  has  not  experi- 
mented the  firmnefs  of  your  faith,  and  its 
fruitfulnefs  in  all  good  works  ?  and  ad- 
mired the  temper  and  moderation  of  your 

religion  in    Chrift  ? For  ye    did    all 

things  without  refpect  of  perfons,  and 
walked  according  to  the  laws  of  God  : 
being  fubje£t  to  thofe  who  had  the  rule 
over  you,  [upotaffamenoi  tois  egoumenois  #- 
moni\  and  giving  the  honor  that  was  fit- 
ing  to  fuch  as  were  the  aged  among  you 
[tois  par  umin  prejhuterois.']  Ye  com- 
manded the  young  men  [Neois]  to  think 
thofe  things  that  were  modeft  and  grave. 
The  women,  ye  exhorted,  to  do  all  things 
with  an  unblameable,  and  feemly,  and 
pure  confcience  ;  loving  their  own  huf- 
bands  as  was  firing." — 

He  goes  on,  in  the  next  fecYion,  com* 
mending  their  former  chriftian  good  tern-* 

per 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   105 

per  and  condud  ;  and  then  proceeds  to 
tell  them  o;  their  faults,  in  the  follow- 
ing words, 

Sect.  III.— "So  was  fulfilled  that  which 
is  written,  "  my  beloved  did  eat  and 
drink,  he  was  enlarged,  and  waxed  far, 
and  he  kicked."  From  hence  came  emu- 
lation, and  envy,  and  ftrife,  and  fedition  ; 
perfecution  and  diforder,  war  and  capti- 
vity. So  they  who  were  of  no  renown 
lifted  up  themfelves  againft  the  honora- 
ble ;  thofe  of  no  reputation,  againft  thofe 
that  were  in  refpeft  ;  the  foolifh  againft 
the  wife  ;  the  young  men  againft  the 
aged  [pi  neoi  epi  tous  prejbut erous.]  There- 
fore righteoufnefs  and  peace  are  depart- 
ed from  you,  becaufe  every  one  hath  for- 
faken  the  fear  of  God.'*— 

Sect.  XXI.  — "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
is  a  candle,  fearching  out  the  inward  parts 
of  the  belly."  Let  us  therefore  conllder 
how  near  he  is  to  us  ;  and  how  that  none 
of  our  thoughts,  or  reafonings,  which 
we  frame  within  our  felves,  are  hid  from 
him.  It  is  therefore  juft,  that  we  fliould 
not  forfake  our  rank,  by  doing  contrary 
to  his  will.      Let  us  chufe   to  offend  a 

few 


io6    CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

few  foolifh  and  inconfiderate  men,  lifted 
up,  and  glorying  in  their  own  pride,  ra- 
ther than  God.  Let  us  reverence  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  whofe  blood  was  giv- 
en for  us ;  let  us  honor  thofe  who  are 
fet  over  us  [tons proegoumwous  emon  ;]  let 
us  refpeft  the  aged  that  are  among  us 
[tous pre/but erous  emon;]  let  us  inftrudt  the 
younger  men  in  the  difcipline  and  fear 
of  the  Lord.  Our  wives  let  us  direct 
to  do  that  which  is  good."— - 

Sect.  XXXVII.  "  Let  us  therefore 
march  on,  men  and  brethren,  with  all 
earneftnefs  in  his  holy  laws.  Let  us 
confider  thofe  who  fight  under  our  earth- 
ly Governors  :  how  orderly,  how  readily, 
and  with  what  exa£l  obedience  they  per- 
form thofe  things  that  are  commanded 
them  ?  All  are  not  Generals,  nor  Colo- 
nels, nor  Captains,  nor  inferior  officers  $ 
but  every  one,  in  his  refpedtive  rank,  does 
what  is  commanded  him  by  the  King,  and 
thofe  who  have  authority  over  him.  They 
who  are  great  cannot  fublift  without 
thofe  that  are  little  -,  nor  the  little  with- 
out the  great.  But  there  muft  be  a  mix- 
ture in  all  things,  and  then  there  will  be 
ufe  and  profit  too.  Let  us,  for  exam- 
ple, 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   107 

pic,  take  our. body  :  the  head  without  the 
feet  is  nothing,  neither  the  feet  without 
the  head.  And  even  the  fmalleft  members 
of  our  body  are  yet  both  neceffary,  and  ufe- 
ful  to  the  whole  body.  But  all  confpire 
together,  and  are  fubjeft  to  one  common 
ufe,  namely,  the  prefer  vation  of  the 
whole  body." 

Having  applied  what  he  had  thus 
faid,  in  the  two  following  fe&ions,  xxxviii 
and  xxxix,  to  the  encouragement  of  good 
order  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  he  goes  on, 

Sect.  XL.  "  Seeing  then  thefe  things 
are  manifeft  to  us,  it  will  behove  us  to 
take  care,  that,  looking  into  the  depths  of 
the  divine  knowledge,  we  do  all  things  in 
order,  whatfoever  our  Lord  has  com- 
manded us  to  do.  And,  particularly, 
that  we  perform  our  offerings  and  fer- 
vice  to  God  at  their  appointed  feafons  5 
for  thefe  he  has  commanded  to  be  done, 
not  rafhly  and  diforderly,  but  at  certain 
determinate  times  and  hours.  And  there- 
fore he  has  ordained,  by  his  fupreme  will 
and  authority,  both  where,  and  by  what 
perfons,  they  are  to  be  performed  :  that 
fy  all  things  being  pioufly  done  unto  all 

well- 


to8  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

well-pleafing,  they  may  be  acceptable  to 
him.  They  therefore  who  make  their 
offerings  at  the  appointed  feafons  are  hap- 
py, and  accepted  ;  becaufe  that,  obeying 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  they  are 
free  from  fin.  And  t Joe  fame  care  muft  be 
had  of  the  perfons  that  mmijler  unto  him.  * 
For  the  chief  Prieft  [Archiereus,  high  Prieft'] 
has  his  proper  iervices  -,  and  to  the 
Priefts  their  proper  place  is  appointed  j 
and  to  the  Levites  appertain  their  pro* 
per  miniftries  ;  and  the  Lay-man  is 
confined  witfrin  the  bounds  of  what  is 
commanded  to  Lay-men,"  It  follows 
immediately, 

Sect.  XLI.  "  Let  every  one  of  you 
therefore,  brethren,  blefs  God  in  his  proper 
ftation,  with  a  good  confeience,  and  with 
all  gravity,  not  exceeding  the  rule  of  his 
fervice  that  is  appointed  to  him.  The 
daily  facrifices  are  not  offered  every 
where  ;  nor  the  peace-offerings,  nor  the 
facrifices  appointed  for  fin  and  tranf- 
greflions  ;  but  only  at  Jerufalem  :  nor 
in  any  place  there,  but  only  at  the  altar 

before 


The  Arch-Btftnp  has  printed  the  above  fen  ten  ce  in  italic, 
to  lei  us  know,  I  fuppofe,  that  it  is  not  in  the  original. 
For  it  is  not  to  be  found  there. 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   109 

before  the  temple  ;  that  which  is  of- 
fered, being  firft  diligently  examined  by 
the  High-prieft,  and  the  other  mini- 
fters,  we  before  mentioned.  They  there- 
fore who  do  any  thing  which  is  not  agreea- 
ble to  his  will,  are  punifhed  with  death. 
Confider,  brethren,  that  by  how  much 
the  better  knowledge  God  has  vouch- 
fafed  unto  us,  by  fo  much  the  greater 
danger  are  we  expofed  to."  The  next 
words  are, 

Sect.  XLII.  "  The  Apoftles  have 
preached  to  us,  from  our  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift  ;  Jefus  Chrift,  from  God.  Chrift 
therefore  was  fent  by  God,  the  Apoftles 
by  Chrift  :  fo  both  were  orderly  fent,  ac- 
cording to  the  will  of  God.  For  having 
received  their  command,  and  being  tho- 
roughly aflured  by  the  refurre&ion  of 
our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  and  convinced  by 
the  word  of  God,  with  the  fullnefs  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  they  went  abroad  pub- 
lilhing,  that  "  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
at  hand."  And  thus  preaching  through 
countries  and  cities,  [Kata  Chdras  kai 
poleis]  they  appointed  the  firft-fruits  of 
their    converfions    to    be   Bifhops    and 

Minifters 


no  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

Minifters  *  [eis  epijkopouskai diakonous]  over 
luch  as  (hould  afterwards  believe,  having 
firft  proved  them  by  theSpirit.  Nor  was  this 
any  new  thing  >  feeing  that,  long  be- 
fore, it  was  written  concerning  Bifhops 
and  Deacons  [peri  epifcopon  kai  diakonon.] 
For  thus  faith  the  fcripture,  in  a  cer- 
tain place,  "  I  will  appoint  their  over- 
feers  [epijkopous  auton]  in  righteoufnefs, 
and  their  minifters  [diakonous  auton]  in 
faith/' 

And  having,  in  the  next,  the  xliiid, 
fedtion,  fpoken  of  the  method  Mofes,  of 
old,  came  into  to  fettle  the  Jewifli  Prieft- 
hood  to  prevent  contention,  he  proceeds, 

Sect.  XLIV.  "  So  likewife  our  Apof- 
tles  knew  by  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  that 
there  fhould  contentions  arife  upon  the 

account 


*  Is  it  fo  vlfible  to  the  meer  Englifn  reader,  by  this  tran- 
flation,  thatClement  is  here  fpeaking  of  the  apoftolic  con- 
ftitution  of  the  two  orders  in  the  church,  Bishops 
and  Deacons,  as  it  is  to  thofe  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  original  words  ?  Can  even  candor  itfelf  fuppofe,  that 
the  word  Diakonous,  could,  in  this  place,  have  been 
tranflated,  not  Dr.  a  cons,  but  by  the  general  word  Mi- 
nisters, unlefs  upon  defign  ?  Efpecially,  when  thofe 
officers  are  here  intended  to  be  pointed  out,  which  both 
Clement,  and  the  fcriptures,  lignify  by  the  word, 
Di  a ko n oi ,  De  a c o n  s,  in  its  appropriated  knfe, 


CLEMENT  of  Rome,   it* 

account  of  the  miniftiy  [epi  tou  onomafot 
tes  epifcoph.*]  And  therefore  having  a 
perfect  fore-knowledge  of  this,  they  ap- 
pointed perfons,  as  we  have  before  faid, 
and  then  gave  direction  -f  how,  when, 
they  fhould  die,  other  chofen  and  approv- 
ed men  fhould  fucceed  in  their  miniftry. 
Wherefore  we  cannot  think,  that  thole 
may  be  juftly  thrown  out  of  their  mini- 
ftry,  who  were  either  appointed  by  them, 
or  afterwards  chofen  by  other  eminent 
rneny  with  the  confent  of  the  whole 
church  ;  and  who  have,  with  all  lowli- 
nefs  and  innocency,  miniftred  to  the 
Sock  of  Chrift,  in  peace;  and  without 
felf-intefeft,  and  were  for  a  long  time 
commended  by  all.  For  it  would  be 
no  fmall  fin  in  us,  fhould  we  call  off 
thofe  from  their  miniftry,  X  [/$  epitopes'] 
who  holily  and  without  blame  fulfil  the 
Q^  duties 

*  "  About  the  name  of  bifkopric,"  as  the  Arch-Bifhop  ren- 
ders it  in  the  margin. 

f  The  Arch-Biftop  has  It  in  the  margin,  "  left  a  lift  of 
other  chofen  and  approved  men,  who  ihould  fucceed 
them  in  the  miniftry." 

-J  Ifthe  word^pifcopes,  inftead  of  minJftry,had  been  tranfla- 
tedhere  epiicopacy,orepifcopate,it  would  have  been  more 
agreeable  to  its  ju.ft  import,  particuhily  in  this  place,  an  J 
not  have  looked  like  sl  defign  to  impofe  on  the  En 

-    ftlHh  reader. 


112  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

duties  of  it,  feleffed  are  thofe  Priefts,  * 
\jnakarioi  oi  Prefbuteroi']  who,  having  fi- 
niihed  their  courfe  before  thefe  times, 
have  obtained  a  perfeft  and  fruitful  diffo- 
lution  :  For  they  have  no  fear  left  any 
one  (hould  turn  thern  out  of  the  place 
which  is  now  appointed  for  them.  But 
we  fee  how  you  have  put  out  fome,  who 
lived  reputably  among  you,  from  the 
miniftry,  which  by  their  innocence  they 
had  adorned. 

Sect.  XLVII.  "  Take  the  epiftle  of 
the  blefled  Paul,  the  Apoftle,  into  your 
hands.      What  was  it  that  he  wrote  to 

you, 

*  It  is  not  eafift  to  conceive,  why  the  Arch-Bi&op  fhould 
here  translate  Presbuteroi,  by  the  word  Priests, 
unlefs  he  had  it  in  view  to  keep  the  Englifti  reader  from 
feeing,   in  fo  ftriking  a  light   as   otherwife  he  would, 
that  Preibyters,   in  the  account  of  Clement,  were  pre- 
cifely  the  Line  order  of  officers  with  Bifhops  ;  as  they  are, 
in  the  preceding  line,  directly  faid  to  be  M  caft  out  of 
their   episcopacy."       The   flipping  in  here  the  word 
Priests,  inftead  of  Preibyters,  obfeures  the  light,  in 
which   this  certain  truth  fo  clearly  mines  in  this  place. 
It  may  be  added,  the  word  Priest  is  nowhere  ufed  by- 
Clement,  or  by  any  of  the  writers  of  the  new-teftament, 
to  fignify  that  officer,  in  the  chriftian  church, who  is  point- 
ed out  by  the  word  Presbyter  :    nor  was  it  ever  fo 
ufed,  until  the  manof  sin  had  grown  to  a  very  confi- 
dcrable    height.      Its  ufe,  as  having  the  fame  meaning 
with  Prefbyter,  though  common  in  the  public  fervices  of 
the  Englifh  church, took  its  rife  from  the  church  of  Ro  M  E0 
and  its  public  offices  j  which  refktts  no  great  honor  on  iu 


CLEMENT  io  Rome,   iij 

you,    at    his  firft   preaching   the   gofpel 
among  you  ?    Verily,  he  did,  by  the  Spi- 
rit, admonifh.  you  .concerninghimfel^and 
Cephas,   and  Apollos,   becaufe  that  even 
then  ye  had  begun  to  fall  into  parties  and 
factions  among  yourfelves.       Neverthe- 
less your   partiality  then  led  you  into   a 
much  lefs  fin  :    forafmuch  as  ye  placed 
your   affections  upon   Apoflles,   men  of 
eminent  reputation  in  the  church  ^  and 
upon  another,  who  was  greatly  tried, and 
approved  of. by  them.  But  confider,we  pray 
you,  who  were  they  that  have  now  led  yon 
aftray,  and  leflened  the  reputation  of  that, 
brotherly  love  that  was  fo  eminent  among 
you  ?  Jt  is  a  fhame,  my  beloved,  yea  a 
very  great  fhame,  and  unworthy  of  your 
christian  profeflion,  to  hear,  that  tbemoft 
firm  and  ancient  church  of  the  Corinthi- 
ans fhould,    by  one  or  two  perfons,  be 
led  into  a  fedition  againft  its  Priefls  [pros 
tous  Prejbuterous.]      And    this  report  is 
come  not  only  to  qs,  but  to  thofe   ajfo 
that  differ  from  us  ;   infomuch  that  the 
name  of  tjie  Lord  is  blafpherned  through 
your  folly  ->  gnd  even  ye  yourfelves  are 
brought  into  danger  by  it." 

Sect.   XLVIII.    «   Let  us  therefore, 
with  all  hafte,  put  an  end  to  this  fediti- 
on s 


?i4  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

<on  ,  and  let  us  fall  down  before  the  Lord, 
and  befeech  him  with  tears,  that  he  would 
be  favorably  reconciled  to  us,  and  re- 
ftoreus  again  to  a  feemlyand  holy  courfe 
of  brotherly  love."— 

Sect.  LIV.  ff  Who  is  there  among 
you  that  is  generous  ?  Who  that  is  com- 
panionate ?  Who  that  has  charity  ?  Let 
him  fay,  if  this  fedition,  this  contention, 
and  thefe  fchifms,  be  upon  my  account,  I  am 
ready  to  deparr,  to  go  away  whither- 
foever  ye  pleafe,  and  do  whatfoever  ye 
/hall  command  me  :  only,  let  the  flock 
of  Chrifl  be  in  peace,  with  the  Elders 
that  are  fet  over  it,  [meta  tonkathejla- 
menon  PrefbyterSn!\  He  that  fhall  do 
this,  (hall  get  to  himfelf  a  very  great  ho- 
nor in  the  Lord." 

Sect.LVII.  «  Do  ye  therefore  whofirft 
kid  the  foundation  of  this  fedition,  fub- 
mit  yourfelves  to  your  Priefts  [tois  Prejbu- 
terois  ;]  and  be  inftru&ed  unto  repen- 
tance, bending  the  knees  of  your  hearts. 
Learn  to  be  fubjecl:,  laying  afide  all  proud 
and  arrogant  boafting  of  your  tongues. 
For  it  is  better  for  you  to  be  found  little, 
and    approved,    in    the    flieepfold    of 

Chrift, 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.  115 

Ghrift,  than  to  feem  to  yourfelves  better 
than  others  >  and  becaft  out  of  his  fold/'— 

Remarks   and   Observations  qv\  the 
foregoing  teftimonies. 

HAVING  laid  before  the  readers 
yiew  all  the  paffages,  in  Clement's  epiftle, 
that  relate  to  the  Epifcopalian  controver- 
fy,  I  fhall  now  take  particular  notice  of 
thofe  among  them,  I  have  met  with  as 
ufed  to  fupport  the  opinion,  which  would 
make  Bifhops  qin  order  in  the  church 
diftinct  from,  and  fuperior  to,Prefbyters  ; 
which  when  I  have  done,  I  fhall  then  pro- 
pofe  fuch  obfervations,  in  favor  of  the 
parity  of  the  order  of  thefe  officers,  a$ 
are  evidently  deducible  from  the  whole 
pf  what  Clement  has  faid  upon  this  point. 
, 

The  paffages  infifted  upon  to  fupport 
the  fuperiority  of  Bifhops  to  Prefbyters, 
I  (hall  connder  without  obierving  any 
other  method,  than  the  order  in  which 
they  lie  in  the  epiftle. 

Th£  firft  paffage  I  meet  with,  recurred 
to  by  epilcopal  writers,  we  have  in 

Sect.  I.—- "  And  ye  walked  accord- 
ing to  the  laws  of  God,  being  fubjeft  to 

thofe 

i 


n6   CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

thofe  [ufotajfamenoi  tois  egoumenois  amon  ] 
who  had  the  rule  over  you,  and  giving 
the  honor  that  was  fitting  [tots  far  umin 
Prejbuterois]  to  fuch  as  were  aged  among 
you."  To  which  they  add  thofe  parallel 
words,  in  fett.  xxi.  "  Let  us  honor  thofe 
that  are  fet  over  us  ;  \tous  froegoumenous 
emon\  let  us  refpedt  [tousPreJbuterous  mon\ 
the  aged  that  are  among  us." 

These  paflages,  it  is  pleaded,  afford 
clear  evidence,  that  there  was,  in  the 
days  of  Clement,  a  diftin£tion  between 
Bifhops  and  Prefbyters.  Being  fubjeft, 
egoumenois  union,  that  is,  fay  they,  to  your 
ccclefiaftical  rulers ;  by  whom  they  con-p 
elude  are  meant  Bifhops :  and  this,  as  of^ 
iicers  diftinft  from  Prefbyters  ;  becaufe 
it  follows,  paying  due  honor  tots  far 
umin  Prejbuterois  ;  by  whom,  they  fup- 
pofe,  we  are  to  understand,  not  aged  men, 
but  thofe  officers  in  the  church,  called 
Prefbyters. 

Now,  in  order  to  fhow  the  invalidity 
of  this  plea,  I  have  no  need  to  go  into  the 
opinion  of  the  learned  Salmafius,  and 
Burton,  who  unfterftand  by  thefe  egou- 
menoiy  not  ecclefiaftical,  but  civil  rulers  ; 
which  opinion   they  ftrengthen  by  ob- 

ferving, 


GLfiMENT  of  Rome,  jiy 

ferving,  that  this  word  is  feveral  times 
ufcd  in  this  epiftle  ;  but  always  as  fig- 
nifying  thofe,  who  were  civil  ruler*.  The 
places  referred  to  by  Salmafius  are  five; 
and  except  thofe  under  confideration, 
they  are  all,  in  which  it  is  ufed  ;  and  it 
is  ufed  in  them  with  reference  to  civil 
officers.  But  this  notwithftanding,  as 
the  word  may,  with  propriety,  be  applied 
to  ecclefiaftical  rulers,  and  is  frequently 
applied  to  them  in  the  facred  books;  and 
as  there  is  no  hint  given,  any  where  in 
Clement's  epiftle,  as  if  the  Corinthi- 
ans were  blameable  for  their  difobedience 
to  their  civil  rulers  ;  and  its  chief  defign 
is  to  teach  them  a  futable  conduct,  not 
towards  thofe  in  the  ftate,  but  in  the 
church,  that  were  fet  over  them  :  I  fay 
confidering  thefe  things,  I  am  willing 
to  allow,  that,  by  thefe  rulers,  we  are  to 
underftand,  not  thofe  of  the  civil,  but 
ecclefiaftical  order  :  but  muft  fay,  at 
the  fame  time,  that  we  have  abundant 
reafon  to  conclude,  they  were  Prefbyters, 
and  not  Bifhops  -,  unlefs  we  take  Bi- 
fhop  and  Prefbyter,  to  be  only  different 
words  for  the  fame  officer.  For  let  it  be 
obferved, 

There 


n8  CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

There  was,  at  this  time,  a  plurality  of 
thefe  rulers  in  the  church  of  Corinth  ;  as 
is  plain  from  the  word,  [egoumeneisjwhkh 
is  of  a  plural  fignification.  Now,  it  is 
certain,  that  there  was  a  plurality  of 
Prefbyters  in  this  church  ;  and  Prefby- 
ters  too,  who  had  been  "  let  over  them," 
to  whom  they  were  commanded  to  "  be 
in  subjection. "  Says  Clement,  \upo- 
tagete  tots  Prejluterols]  u  Be  ye  fubje£t  to 
your  Prefbyters/'  And  it  is  obfervable,- 
the  fame  word,  here  joned  with  Pref- 
byters, requiring  the  fubje£tion  of  the 
Corinthian  church  to  them,  is  joined 
alfo  with  the  word,  egoumenois,  befpeak- 
ing  the  fame  fubjeclion.  The  interpre- 
tation is  therefore  fmooth,  natural,  and 
confident  with  the  current  ftrain  of  the 
whole  epiftle,  while  by  thefe  egcumenois 
we  underftand  the  Prefbyters  of  the 
church  >  efpec'ia.ily,  if  it  be  further  con- 
sidered, that  Preibyter-Bifhops  £re  the 
higheft  ecclefiaftical  rulers  any  where  rrrenr 
tioned  by  Clement  :  nor  is  his  epiftle  at 
all  acquainted  with  Bifhops,  orily  as  tJxey 
mean  officers  in  the  church,  precifely 
*>f  the  feme  rank  vvith  the  Prefbyters 
of  it, 

Besides 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.  119 

Besides,  it  may  be  worth  a  remark, 
the  word   egoumenn  is  one  of  the  name 3 
ufed  in  fcripture  to  point  out  Prelbyters, 
or,  in  other  words,  thofe  officers  in  the 
chriftian  church,  that  are  elfewhere,  in 
the  facred  writings,  promifcuoufly  and  in* 
differently  called  either  Bifhops,or  Prefby* 
ters.    Thus  in  the  epiftle  to  the  Hebrews, 
when   they   are    minded   of    their    duty 
to  their  ecclefiaftical  guides,   or  rulers,  it 
is  exprefled  after  that  manner,  "  Remem* 
ber  [ton  egoumenon  umbn\  them  which  have 
the  rule  over  you,  and  have  fpoken  to 
you    the  word  of  God."  *     And  a   few 
verfes    below,    "  obey     [tots    egoumenois 
umori]  all  them  that  have  the  rule  over 
you."       And    the   epiftle  Concludes    in 
that    ftile,   «'  falute  [pantas  tous  egoume* 
nous   umon]    them    that    have    the  ruir 
over  you."      And  this  ufe  of  the  word, 
in  this  epiftle,  is  the  rather  to  be  regard- 
ed, becaufe  Eufebius  and  Jerom  fpeak, 
both  of  them,  of  fo  great  an  affinity,  in 
many  things,  both  as  to  words  and  mat* 
ter,  between  this  and  the  epiftle  of  Cle- 
ment, that  it  was  from  thence  thought, 
that  Clement  was,  at  leaft,the  translator  of 

the 
R 


H6  CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

the  epiflle  to  the  Hebrews.  And  cri- 
ticks  make  life  of  it  as  a  ftrong  argu- 
ment in  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
prefent  copy  of  Clements  epiftle,  that  it 
is  found  to  agree  fo  well  with  this  obfer* 
vation  of  Eufebius  and  Jerom. 

But  if,  with  the  Epifcopalians,  we 
fhould  fuppofe  thefe  egonmenoi  mean  Bi-* 
fhops,  in  diftinction  from  Prefbyters  ; 
will  it  not  follow,  as  an  inevitable  confe- 
quence,  that  there  was  in  the  church 
of  Corinth,  at  the  fame  time,  a  plurali- 
ty of  Bifhops  ?  It  is  obfervable,  the  word 
is  egoumenoisi  not  in  the  Angular,  but  plu- 
ral number:  which  can  never  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  do&rine  of  one  u  Bifhop  in 
a  church,  as  the  center  of  unity."  The 
dilemma  here  is  plain  :  either  thefe  egou* 
menoi  were  not  Bifhops  in  the  fenfe 
pleaded  for,  or  there  were  more  of  thefe 
Bifhops  than  one,  in  the  fame  church,  at 
the  fame  time.  That  is  to  fay,  either 
this  teftimony  from  Clement  muft  be 
given  up,  or  the  old  facred  maxim,  "  one 
Bifhop  one  altar."  But  rather  than  part 
with  this,  I  doubt  not  we  fhall  be  left  in 
<juiet  poffeffion  of  any  teftimony  whatever. 

It 


CLEMENT  of  Rome,   121 

Jt  will  perhaps   he    obje&ed    againft 
what    has  been  offered,  that  thefe  rulers 
are  diftinguiflmed,  in  the  paffages  them- 
selves,   from    Prefbyters  ;    and   therefore 
can  never  mean  the  fame  officers. 

In  anfwer  whereto,  I  freely  acknow- 
ledge,  the  Greek  words,  egoumenois,  and 
Pre/buterois,  are  diftinguifhed  from  each 
Other  ;  but  that   the  word,  Prejbuterois, 
means  here  thofe  officers  in  the  church, 
that  are  called  Prefbyters,  there  is  no  rea- 
fon  to  think.     It  is  certain,  this  term  is 
fometirrjes  ufed  in  its  common  $nd  un- 
appropriated  fenfe,    as   fignifying    only 
aged  perfons.     In  this  fenfe  it  is  taken  in 
1.  Tim.    y,   1.    "   Rebuke   not    [Prejhu- 
tero]  31}  Elder,  but  intreat  him  as  a   fa- 
ther."--- Dr.  Whitby's  note  here  is,  "  In 
the  judgment  of  Chryfoftom,  Theodoret, 
Oecumenius,  and  Theophylafr,  the  Elder 
here  fignifies,  not  a  Prieft,  but  a  grave 
and  ancient  rrjan  ;    ftich  being  in  all  ages 
and   nations   ftiled   fathers.      And   this 
fenfe,  the  diftindHon  here  of  ages,  and 
of  fexes,  feems  to  plead  for.      For  fo  it 
follows,    "   the  younger    men    (intreat) 
as  brethren,  the  elder  wompn  as  mothers," 
and  foon*     Ii)  the  fame  ftqfe,  jfois  word 

is 


izz  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

is  to  be  taken  in  thefe  pafTages  of  Cle- 
ment, and  for  the  fame  reafon  ;  though 
much  ftrengthened  by  its  manner  of  con- 
nexion .     For  let  it  be  Qbferved, 

In  the  firft  of  thefe  pafTages,  Clement 
is  commending  the  Corinthians  for 
what  was  formerly  worthy  in  their 
conduct  ;  and,  among  other  things, 
mentions  it  to  their  praife,  that  they 
<•'  had  been  fubjecl  to  their  egoumenois" 
and  had  "  paid  cjue  honor  to  their  Pre/- 
bytcrois  y  where,  by  Prejbyterois,  he  means, 
and  muft  mean,  not  their  Prefbyters,  bat 
the  aged  among  them,  not  only  becaufe 
it  immediately  follows,  "  ye  commanded 
the  young  men  to  think  thofe  things 
that  were  modeil  and  grave  "  but  be- 
jCaufe  the  egoumenai,  they  had,  in  their 
former  orderly  ftate,  been  fubjecl  to* 
Were  the  Presbyters  of  the  church  : 
for  thefe,  as  has  been  proved,  he  elfe- 
where  mentions  as  "  fet  over  the  church," 
and  accordingly  enjoins  their  "fubjeelior* 
to  them  ;"  nor  are  any  higher  church 
officers  fpoken  of  in  his  cpiftle;  and  what 
is  more,  he  fpeaks  of  thefe,  as  has  been 
(aid,  and  will  hereafter  be  further  prov- 
ed, as  actually  veiled  with  episcopacy. 

The 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.  123 

The  interpretation  therefore  is  natural, 
obvious,  and  confident,  which  unders- 
tands the  word  prejbyterou  in  this  place, 
not  as  pointing  out  the  officers  in  the 
church,  called  Prefbyters,  who  had  been 
fpoken  of  in  the  immediately  foregoing 
words  ',  but  as  fignifying,in  its  unappro- 
priated fenfe,  aged  persons  :  whereas, 
to  conftrue  it  otherwifc,  would  make 
Clement  a  carelefs,  inattentive,  not  to  fay 
blundering,  inconfiftent  writer. 

In  the  other  paflage,  Clement,  in  op- 
position to  the  present  diforderly,  fedi- 
tious  behavior  of  fome  in  the  Corinthian 
church,  exhorts   them  to  a  temper  and 
conduct   better  befiting  their   chara&er 
as  Chriftians.      Says  he,  "  Let  us  rever- 
ence our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  whofe  blood 
was  given  for  us  5  let  us  honor  [tons  pro- 
egaumenous  imon\  thofe  who  are  fet  over 
us  ;  let  us  refpeft  [tons  Prejbyterous  imon\ 
the  aged  among  us  ;  let  us  inftruft  the 
younger  men  [neous]   in  the  fear  of  the 
Lord/'     The  Proegoumenoi  here  are  the 
fame  that  are  fpoken  of  in  the  above 
paffage,  that  is,  the  Prefbyters  who  had 
been  fet  over  the  church.      The  word, 
fre/byteroi,    therefore   muft   mean    their 

aged 


i34  CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

aged  people.  There  will,  in  this  con- 
flru&ion  of  the  word,  be  order,  propria 
ety,  and  beauty,  in  the  exhortations  that 
are  feverally  made  :  whereas,  if  the  word 
is  tranflated  fo  as  to  fignify  the  Prefby- 
ters  of  the  church,  there  will  be  intro- 
duced tautology,  and  a  breach  of  order 
in  the  advices  that  #re  here  given, 

The  interpretation  I  have  exhibited 
of  thefe  paflages  will  more  evidently  ap^. 
pear  to  be  juft  ;  if  we  turn  to  fedh  iiid, 
where  Clement  fpecifies  the  diforders  he 
would  blame  in  the  church  at  Corinth. 
His  words  are  thefe,  f-  They  who  were 
of  no  renown  lifted  themfelves  up  againft 
the  honorable  ;  thofe  of  no  reputation 
againft  thofe  that  were  in  refpeft  ;  the 
foolifh  againft  the  wife  ;  the  young 
men  againft  the  3ged,  neous  epi  tons  Pref- 
byterous  :  therefore  righteoufnefs  and 
peace  are  departed  from  you."— The  op- 
portion  between  the  young  men  and 
the  aged,  is  fo  plain  here,  that  none  ever 
pretended  to  difpute  this  fenfe  of  the 
word,  prejbyte? -oi>  in  this  place.  And  this, 
being  us  fenfe  here,  muft  be  its  fenfe  al- 
fo  in  the  other  paflages  wc  have  confider- 

ed  ; 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   125 

cd  j   for  they  all  relate   to  one  and  the 
fame  thing. 

I  shall  only  fubjoin  upon  this  head  -, 
in  Cotelerius's  "  apoftolical  fathers"  by 
L'Clerc,  in  all  thefe  feclions,  the  word 
prejbuteroi  is  tranflated  aged  persons. 
Arch-Bifhop  Wake  alfo,  in  his  "  epiftles 
of  the  fathers,"  renders,  the  fame  word, 
in  all  the  above  places,,  in  the  fame 
manner  :  which  I  thus  give  notice 
of,  becaufe  their  thus  tranflating  the 
word,  muft  have  proceeded  from  a  full 
conviftion  of  the  neceflary  propriety  of 
this  verfion,  and  not  from  want  of  a 
good  heart  to  ferve  the  epifcopal  caufe,  as 
far  as  they  could  with  a  good  confcience. 

The  next  plea,  made  in  favor  of  the 
diftin&ion  between  Bifhops  and  Prefby- 
ters,  is  fetched  from  kc\.  xld,  where  Cle- 
ment fpeaks  of  the  threefold  order  in  the 
Jewifh  church,  "  High-Prieft,  Priefts, 
and  Levites  :"  which  is  fuppofed  to  be  a 
plain  intimktion  of  a  like  threefold  order 
in  the  Chriftian  church,  in  the  diftinft 
officers  of  Bifhops,  Prefbyters,  and  Dea- 
cons,     And   as   this    is    an    argument 

great 


iz6   CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

great  ftrefs  is  laid  upon,  I  fhall  be  parti- 
cular in  confidering  it. 

Only  I  muft  firft  defire  the  reader  care* 
fully  to  look  over  fedh  xxxvii,  xl>  xli,  xlii, 
xliv,  which  I  have  fet  down  entire,  that  he 
may  be  able  to  judge  of  the  manner  in 
which  thele  words  are  introduced,  the 
purpofe  they  are  brought  to  ferve,  and 
the  fpecial  application  that  is  made  of 
them ;  which  muft  certainly  be  allowed 
to  be  the  beft  method  to  come  at  their 
genuine  meaning.  Nor  can  it  be  thought 
fair  to  fix  upon  a  few  words,  in  a  connect- 
ed argumentative  difcourfe,  and  plead  for 
them  as  they  be  dif-joined  from  what 
preceeds,  and  follows  i  but  their  fenfe 
muft  be  determined  by  the  place  they 
bear  in  the  argument  of  which  they  are  a 
part*      Having  obferved  this, 

I  am  free  to  own,  Clement,  in  order 
to  reduce  the  church  of  Corinth  to  a 
ftate  of  regularity,  prefents  to  their  view 
the  ceconomy  of  the  Jewifti  church  >  in 
which  proper  order  and  decorum  had  been 
conftituted,  and  was  obferved.  But  when 
he  mentions  the  "  Jewifli  High-Prieftf 
Priefts,  and  Levites,"  that   it  was  his 

intention 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.  127 

intention  to  exhibit  a  pattern  of  the 
Chriftian  church,  under  the  threefold 
order  of  Bifhops,  Prefbyters,  and  Deacons, 
there  is  no  appearance  of  a  probability 
to  fuppofe  :  as  will  be  evident  if  \ye  con- 
fider  what  follows  in  one  conjunct  view. 

1  i 
I.  Let  lis  compare  this  with  the 
like  kind  of  arguing,  in  this  epiftle.  la 
feet,  xxxvii,  Clement  fets  before  the  Co- 
rinthians the  example  of  an  army  :  in 
which  every  one  has  his  proper  place. 
"Some  are  only  common  Soldiers  ;  fome 
are  Prasfects  ;  fome  Chiliarchs  ;  fome 
Centurions;  fome  Chieftains  of  fifty;  eve- 
ry one  of  whom  keeps  to  his  own  ftation". 
Now,  the  defign  of  this  comparifonis  ob- 
vious, namely,  to  reprefent  the  beauty 
and  neceffity  of  the  like  regularity  in 
the  church  of  Corinth.  And  the  mean- 
ing is  intirely  abfolved  in  this  general 
accommodation,  without  going  fo  far  in- 
to the  parallel,  as  to  fuppofe  preeifely 
as  many  diftinct  officers  in  the  church, 
as  there  arc  in  an  army. 

Surely,   it   was    not    his    meaning, 
"  that  the  church  militant  muft  be  re- 
gimented into   order,    u$der  Patriarchs, 
S  Arch~ 


123  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

Arch-Bifhops,  Bifhops,  Priefts,  and  other 
officers,  fu  peri  or  to  the  common  ehrif- 
tian  military  !"  There  is  no  imaginable 
reafon  to  fuppofe,  fuch  a  thought  ever  en-* 
tered  into  his  heart. 

In  Se<5L  XLII,  he,  in  like  manner, 
propofes  to  the  confideration  of  the 
Corinthian  church  the  good  order  that 
was  oblerved  in  the  jewifh  church,  par- 
ticularly in  their  worfhip.  They  had 
(as  he  represents)  "  their  facrirkes  both 
propitiatory  andeuchariftical  :"  butthefe 
were  not  to  be  offered  "  every  where?" 
but  €*  at  Jerufalem  only  $  and  not  in 
every  place  even  at  Jerufalem,  but  in 
"  the  temple  on  the  altar."  And  his  aim 
here  is  plain,  to  encourage,  among  the  Co- 
rinthians, from  this  example,  thejike  de- 
cent regularity  ;  without  carrying  the  mat- 
ter fo  far,  as  to  make  the  Jewifh  worfhip 
an  exacl:  model  for  the  Chriftian.  So  in 
the  cafe  before  us  :  when  Clement  men- 
tions the  (•  High-Prieft,  Priefts,  and  Le- 
vites,"  with  each  "  their  proper  fervices 
affigned  them,"  though  he  fo  far  accom- 
modates this  inftance,  as  to  argue  it  to 
be  reafonable,  that  there  fliould  be,  in 
like  manner,  perfons  in  the  Chriftian 

church* 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   129^ 

church,  whofe  proper  bufinefs  it  might 
be  to  attend  irs  miniftraticns  ;  yet,  that 
there- ought  to  be  exactly  a  threefold  or- 
der of  them,  in  anfwer  to  the  threefold 
order  in  the  Jewifh  church,  there  is  no 
more  giound  to  think,  than  that  the 
parallel  in  the  foregoing  cafes,  ought  to 
be  intirely  completed.  It  is  enough 
that  the  parallel  anfwer  in  the  general 
defign,  he  has  in  view,  without  making 
it,  as  we  vulgarly  fpeak,  "  run  on  all 
four/'  And  it  deferves  particular  notice, 
in  the  ufe  Clement  makes  of  this  argu- 
ment, in  the  words  immediately  follow- 
ing, he  regards  only  its  general  accomr 
niodation.  For  thus  he  goes  on,  "  Let 
every  one  of  you,  Brethren,  in  his  own 
proper  order  give  God  thanks  ;  living  in 
good  conscience,  and  keeping  within  the 
defined  rule  of  his  fervice."  He  infers 
nothing  in  particular  from  the  example  of 
the  Jewifh  "High-Prieft,  Priefts,  and  Le- 
vites'*  with  their"  appointed  fervices  ;" 
but  only,  in  general,  takes  occafion  to  re-, 
commend  it  to  every  one,  in  his  proper 
place,  to  keep  the  duties  of  his  ftation  / 
without  fo  much  as  giving  the  lead  hint, 
as  if  there  were  juft  three  ftations  in  the 
church  of  Corinth,  35  there  were  in   the 

church 


f*o  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

church  of  the  Jews  ;  which  muft  needs 
be  deemed  an  argument  of  great  negli- 
gence, if  he  had  intended  any  thing  like 
an  exaft  parallel.     To  go  on, 

II.  It  is  moft  obvioufly  remarkable, 
Clement  pnrpofely  fets  himielf,  in  fe&. 
xliid,  to  exhibit  an  account  of  the  apofto- 
lie  appointment  of  officers  in  the 
Chriftian  church  :  in  which  he  quite  lays 
afide  the  Jewifli  constitution  in  a  three- 
fold order,  and  mentions,  inftead  of 
it,  only  the  twofold  order  of  Bifhops 
and  Deacons.  Says  he,  "  The  Apoftles 
Jjave  preached  the  gofpel  to  us  from  our 
Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  and  Jefus  Chrift  from 
God.  For  Chrift  was  lent  by  God,  and 
the  Apoftles  by  Chrift.— Preaching  there-* 
fore  through  cities  and  countries,  they 
Conftituted  their  firft  fruits  for  Bishops 
and  Deacons/1 

It  certainly  would  have  been  natural, 
if  Clement  had  intended  a  parallel  be- 
tween the  Jewifli  "  High-Prieft,  Priefts, 
and  Levites,"  and  Chriftian  "  Bifhops, 
Prefbyters,  and  Deacons ;"  1  fay,  it  would 
Jiave  been  obvious  for  him  to  have  ap- 
1  plied 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   i3* 

plied  here  his  difcourfe  but  a  few  lines 
above  :  cfpecially,  confidering  he  was 
ftill  upon  the  fame  argument,  purfuing 
one  and  the  fame  defign.  But  is  there 
the  leaft  hint  of  any  fuch  application  ? 
So  far  from  it,  that  he  fays  not  a  fylla- 
ble  of  a  threefold,  but  expreffly  mentions 
a  twofold  order  ;  and  this,  as  appointed 
by  the  Apoftles  :  which  is  an  inconfiften- 
cy,  upon  the  impleaded  interpretation 
not  capable  of  being  removed  by  any  art 
of  man. 

Nor  is  it  unworthy  of  a  remark,  that, 
in  proving  this  conftitution  of  Bifhops 
and  Deacons  to  be,  not  a  novel  thing,  but 
what  had  long  before  been  wrote  about, 
Clement  refers  us  to  that  paflage  in 
Ifaiah,  "  I  will  appoint  their  Bifhops  in 
righteoufnefs,  and  Deacons  in  faith." 
Whether  this  text  is  pertinently  quoted, 
or  not,  is  not  my  bufinefs  to  inquire:  but 
thus  much  is  undeniable,  that,  had  Cle- 
ment perceived  any  refemblance  between 
the  Jewifh  "  High-Prieft  and  Levites," 
(of  whom  he  had  but  juft  before  fpoken) 
and  chriftian  "Bifhops  and  Deacons",  he 
would  have  much  fooner  have  turned  us 
back  to  that   conftitution,  then   to  this 

text; 


132  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

text ;  and  his  omitting  to  do  this,  can 
be  afcribed  to  no  other  rational  caufe, 
but  its  not  having  entered  his  heart,  to 
fuppofe  any  exatt  parallel  between  the 
Jewifli,  and  Chriftian  conftitution,  in 
point  of  a  threefold    order  of    officers. 

III.  It  may  not  be  amifs  to  inquire, 
upon  fuppofition  Clement  really  intend- 
ed the  conftitution  of  the  Jewifli  church, 
in  u  High-Prieft,  Priefts,  and  Levites,"  as 
a  pattern  for  the  conftitution  of  the 
chriftian  church ;  I  fay,  it  may  not  be 
improper  to  inquire,  whether,  even  up- 
on this  fuppofition,  he  fays  any  thing 
in  favor  of  a  diftinftion  of  order  be- 
tween Bifliops  and  Prelbyters.  And  it 
is  plain  he  does  not.  For  Bifliops,  in 
the  days  of  Clement,  (according  to  the 
higheft  demand  of  prelatical  writers) 
were  the  heads  only  of  a  few  congrega-* 
tions  in  particular  cities,  and  their  neigh- 
bouring villages  :  whereas,  nothing  is 
more  known,  than  that  the  "  High- 
Prieft"  flood  related,  not  to  a  few  fyna- 
gogues  in  this,  and  the  other  city,  and 
the  towns  bordering  thereon  ;  but  to 
the  whole  Jewifli  church.  There  is 
therefore  no   analogy   between  Bifliops, 

and 


CLEMENT  of  Home.   133 

and  the  Jewifh  High-Prieft  :  nor  fhall 
we  be  able  to  find  one  any  where  fhort 
of  Rome.  For,  befides  the  Pope,  there 
is  no  vifible  head  to  the  chriftian  church, 
in  any  proper  fenie,  anfwering  to  the 
High-Prieft  among  the  Jews.  One  in- 
vifible  one  indeed  there  is,  "  Jefus  the 
High-Priest  of  our  profeffion  £\  under 
whom  are  placed,  in  the  church,  Bifhops 
or  Prefbyters,  and  Deacons.  And  in  this 
fenfe,  the  paralleL  is  ftrietly  juft,  and  per* 
fedtly  confonant  to  the  whole  tenor  of 
Clement's  epiftle :  in  which  Chrift  is  ex- 
preflly  fpoken  of  in  the  ftile  of  High- 
Priest  *  )  and  under  him,  no  other  offi- 
cers are  mentioned,  as  conftrtuted  in  the 
chriftian  church,  but  Bifhops,  who  arc 
alfo  called  Prefbyters,  and  Deacons-.  But 
if  we  muft  have  a  vifible  head  to  the 
church,  correfponding  to  the  High-Prieft 
in  the  Jewifh  model,  there  is  no  avoiding 
a  fubmiflion  to  the  Papal  chair.  And, 
accordingly,  to  this  purpole  theRomarrifts 
conftantly  make  ufe  of  this  paffage  in 
Clement :  and  every  one,   with  half  an 

eye, 

*  In  feci,  xxx  vi,  we  have  thefe  words,  "  This  is  the  way, 
beloved,  in  which  we  may  find  our  Savior,  Jefus  Chritf, 

TON    ARCHIEREA    TOW  PROSFHORON     EMOM,"  tCi^t 

is,  the  "  High-Priest  of  our  offerings." 


134    CLEMENT  qf  Rome* 

eye,  may  fee,  that  the  parallel  is  far  more 
juft  and  natural  between  the  Pope  and 
the  High-Prieft,  than  between  the 
High-Prieft  and  Bifhops :  fince  there  may 
be  hundreds  of  Bifhops  in  the  chriftian 
church ;  whereas  there  neither  was,  nor 
could  be,  but  one  High-Prieft  in  the 
Jewifh. 

It  will  no  doubt  be  here  faid,  it  was 
the  manner,  in  ancient  times,  to  argue 
from  the  conftitution  of  the  Jewifh 
church,  in  High-Prieft,  Priefts,  and  Le- 
vites,  to  the  conftitution  of  the  Chrif* 
tian  church  in  Bifhops,  Prefbyters,  and 
Deacons  :  and,  therefore,  that  the  pa* 
rallel ought  hereto  be  thus  run,  however 
unnatural  it  may  appear.  In  anfwer 
whereto, 

I  readily  acknowledge,  it  was  an 
ancient  cuftom  to  argue  from  the  Jewifh 
to  the  Chriftian  conftitution,  as  is  plead- 
ed ;  but,  at  the  fame  time,  muft  obferve, 
this  method  of  arguing  was  not  in  ufe, 
in  the  days  of  Clement.  It  was  plainly 
the  invention  of  later  times,  when  Epifco- 
pacy  (in  fome  fort  analagous  to  the  mo* 
dern  fenfeof  the  word)  began  to  (how  it- 

fdf  ; 


CLEMENT  of  %m%>  tJJ 

felf :  nor  dn  an  inftance  be  produced* 
from  any  writer,  until  long  after  the  days 
of  Clement,  wherein  it  is  thus  died.  It 
is  not  therefore  fair  to  argue  for  this 
application  of  the  words  in  Clement,  front 
the  like  application  of  the  fame  words^ 
in  thofe  authors,  who  had  no  being  in 
the  world,  until  Clement  had  been  dead, 
and  turned  into  duft,  for  many  years* 
Befides,  it  ought  to  be  cortfidered,  the 
writers,  in  after  times,  directly  fpeak  of 
Bifhops  irt  the  ffile  of  High-Priefte,  and 
exprefsly  make  them,  ill  the  parallel,  an* 
fwer  to  the  Jewifh  High-Prieft  ;  leaving 
tlo  room  for  doubt  in  the  matter,  with 
how  much  weaknefs  and  aukwardnefs  fo~ 
ever  they,  upon  this  account,  becoma 
chargeable.  But  is  this  the  cafe  with 
Clement  ?  Does  he  ever  call  a  Bifhop* 
High-Prieft  ?  Does  he  ever  go  about  to 
apply  the  jewifh  conftitutioh,  (o  &s  t& 
make  Bifhops  anfwer  in  the  parallel  to  the 
High-Prieft  ?  So  far  from  any  thing  of 
this  tendency*  that  he  makes  mention  (as 
we  have  feen)  only  of  a  twofold  order  of 
officers  in  the  chriftian  church  i  and  gives 
hot  the  lead  hint,  as  if  he  ever  thought  v£ 
a  third  that  was  higher. 

T  #  i 


136  CLExMENT  of  Rome. 

IV.  I  shall  add  to  what  has  been  faid, 
if  Clement  is  interpreted  in  the  fenfe  I 
am  oppofing,  there  will  be  no  harmony 
between  his  difcourfe  here,  and  the  cur- 
rent (train  of  his  epiitle  ;  which,  through 
the  whole,  perfectly  agrees  with  the  ac- 
count he  gives  of  the  twofold  order  of 
Bifliops  and  Deacons  ;  but  not  at  all 
with  a  threefold  one,  in  imitation  of  the 
Jewifh  hierarchy.  It  is  common  in  this 
epiftle,  it  mult  be  acknowledged,  to  meet 
with  the  word  Bifliops  as  well  as  Prefby- 
ters  ;  to  which  if  Deacons  are  added, fomc 
may  think,  the  parallel  will  be  made  out. 
But  it  is  obfervable,  there  never  once  oc- 
curs, in  Clement's  epiftle,  fuch  a  mode 
of  fpeech,  as  Bifhops,  Prefbyters,  and 
Deacons,  the  almoft  facred  and  invaria- 
ble way  of  writing,  after  the  diftinftion 
between  Bifliops  and  Prefbyters  took 
place.  And  though  (as  was  faid)  we 
read  of  Bifliops,  as  well  as  Prefbyters,  yet 
it  is  io  ordered,  that  the  Bifliops  are  ne- 
ver fo  much  as  once  diftinguifhed  from 
Prefbyters  :  nay,  fo  far  is  Clement  from 
representing  any  distinction  of  order  be- 
tween them,  that  he  dire&ly  confiders 
the  Prefbyters  of  Corinth,  as  vefted  with 
the  Epifcopal  office,  and  in  the  molt  plain 

manner 


CLEMENT  of  Rome. 


37 


manner  reflefts  blame  upon  that  church, 
for  "  carting  their  Prelbyters  out  or  their 
Epifcopacy."— -But  of  this  we  lhall  more 
particularly  fpeak,  under  the  laft  argu- 
ment, brought  from  Clement  in  defence  of 
modern  Epiicopacy. 

And  this  is  taken  from  thofe  words  in 
feet,  xliv,  €t  And  the  Apoftles  knew  by 
our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  that  there  would 
be  contention  about  the  name  of  Epii- 
copacy :  therefore,  being  endued  with 
perfect  foreknowledge,  they  conftituted 
the  before-mentioned  perfons  (namely, 
Bifhops  and  Deacons  ;)  and  moreover 
gave  direction  how,  if  they  fhould  die, 
other  approved  men  fhould  lucceed  in 
their  miniflry."— —  Here  it  is  urged,  the 
Apoftles  are  reprefented  as  knowing  there 
would  arife  thofe,  who  would  appear 
againft  the  caufe  of  Epiicopacy  ;  and,  as 
it  were  on  purpofe,  to  guard  againft  it, 
did  themfelves  appoint  Bifhops  in  the 
church,  and  provide  tor  a  fucceffion  of 
others  in  this  office,  after  the  deceafe  of 
thofe  they  appointed. 

This  plea,  however  often  it   has  been 
urged,  I  lhall  Ihow  to  be  altogether  iava- 


*3$  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

lid,  by  making  it  evident,  even  from  Cjer 
jnent  fcimfeif,  that  his  difcourfe  in  this 
parage  is  fo  far  ffotp  favoring  any  dif- 
tindtion  of  order  between  Biihops  and 
Prefbyters,  that  it  is  the  ftrongeft  tefti- 
roony,  in  his  whole  epiftle,  for  their  be- 
ing the  fame  order  of  officers  in  the 
church;  and  fuch  an  one,  that  we  could 
not  have  defired  a  ftronger,  if  wehac} 
been  prefent,  when  this  was  exhibited,  to 
direct  his  pen. 

Ttie  teflimony  begins,  "  And  the 
Apoftles  knew  by  our  Lord  Jefus  Chpjfc. 
there  would  be  contention  about  the  name 
of  Epifcopacy."— -But  what  are  we  to 
underftand  by  this  <(  Epifcopacy  ?M  Is  it 
fuch  an  one,  as  they  only  are  veiled  with, 
who  are  officers  in  the  church  iuperior  iri 
their  order  to  Prefbyters  ?  The  modern 
uie,  and  found,  of  the  word,  may  poffibly 
be  apt  to  lead  the  Jefs  thinking  reader 
Into  fuch  an  imagination  :  but  the  term 
Epifcopacy,  in  the  days  of  Clement,  had 
quite  another  meaning  from  what  it  has 
now.  With  him,  it  intends  only  an 
pverught  of  the  flock  ;  fuch  an  Epifco- 
pacy, as  perfons  nothing  more  than  Pref- 
byters   might    be,   and    aftuajly    were, 

veftecl 


ELEMENT  of  Rome.    139 

vefted  with.     And   for  the  proof  of  this, 
J  (hall  appeal  to  Clement  himfelf  ;  who, 
in  this  very    fe&ion,  tells  us  as  much  in 
the   moft  plain   language.       His    words 
are  thefe,  J<  For  it  is  no  fmall  fin,  if  we 
caft  thofe  out  of  their  Epifcopacy,  [Epif- 
kopes,  the  very  word  ufed  above]  who  have 
offered   their  gifts  in  an   holy  manner    ; 
Blefled  are  thofe  Presbyters  who  have 
firft  finished  their  cQurfe."     It  feems  then 
Prefbyters    might,  in   Clement's     opini- 
on, be  vefted  with   Epifcopacy,   becaufe 
he  declares  the  Prefbyters  of  Corinth  were 
in  fael  thqs  vefted.      Nor  was  the  con- 
tention, "  the  Apoftles  knew  there  would 
be  about  the  name  of  Epifcopacy, "  any 
other  than  fuch  a  contention  as  then  ac- 
tually fubfifted  in  the  church  of  Corinth. 
And  what  was  this  ?  Not  a  contention, 
whether  there  was  a  diftin&ion  of  order 
between    Bifhops    and    Prefbyters  :     we 
have  no  hint  of  any  fuch  thing  any  where 
in  the  epiftle  ;  but  it  was  a  contention  a- 
bout  the  minifterial  order  itfelf  \   a  con- 
tention about  the  office  of  Prefbyters, or  (as 
they  are  likewife  called)  Bifhops  ;  which 
the  people  had  carried  to  fuch  an  height, 
as  that  they  had  rofe  up  againft  their  Bi- 
fhops or  Prefbyters,  and  turned  them  out 
pf  their  Epifcopacy.  The 


140  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

The  plea  goes  on,  the  Apoftles,to  guard 
againft  this  contention  about  Epilcopa- 
cy,  "  conftituted  Bifhops  and  Deacons, 
and  moreover  gave  direction  (according 
to  others  a  roll  or  lilt)  that,  when  they 
fhould  die,  other  approved  men  might 
fucceed  in  the  miniftry."  And  no  one 
doubts,  but  the  Apoftles  appointed  Bi- 
fhops, and  provided  for  a  fucceflion  of 
fuch  officers  in  the  church.  But  the 
queftion  is,  Who  are  here  meant  by 
thefe  Bifhops  ?  Were  they  an  order  in  the 
church  diftin<5t  from,  and  fuperior  to, 
Prcfbyters  ?  Clement  himfelf  can  beft 
inform  us.  And  this  he  has  done  fo  evi- 
dently, that  we  cannot  well  fail  of  know- 
ing his  mind,  if  we  will  but  attend  to 
what  he  has  faid.  Let  us  then  examine 
the  connection  of  his  difcourie  in  this 
paragraph. 

And  he  very  plainly  lays  it  down  (1) 
That  "  the  Apoftles  knew  there  would 
be  contention  about  Epifcopacy."  (2) 
To  guard  againft  this,  they  did  them- 
felves  "  appoint  Bifhops  and  Deacons  in 
the  church"  ;  that  is,  (if  we  turn  to 
feet,  xlii,  the  place  he  himfelf  has  refer- 

ed 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   141 

ed  to)  they  conftituted  of  the  "  firft 
fruits  of  their  converfions,  a  number  of 
Bifhops  and  Deacons"  for  the  benefit  of 
the  church,  as  believers  fhould  after- 
wards increafe.  (3)  Befides  this  confti- 
tution  of  perfons,  they  "  gave  direftion," 
as  deaths  fhould  happen,  that  "  others 
fhould  be  conftituted  to  fucceed  in  their 
room."  (4)  From  thefe  premifes,  he  in- 
fers it  to  be  an  unjuftifiable  thing  to 
"  caft  thofe  out  of  their  Epifcopacy," 
who  have  behaved  well  ;  whether  they 
had  been  conftituted  by  the  Apoftles 
themfelves,  or  other  excellent  men  af- 
terwards. And  now  (5)  To  bring  his 
argument  to  a  point,  and  to  let  the 
church  of  Corinth  certainly  know,  that 
he  aimed  at  them  in  all  this  difcourfe, 
and  defigned  to  condemn  their  unfutable 
conduct  towards  their  '  Prefbyters,  he 
offers  to  their  confideration  the  "  blefled- 
nefs  of  thofe  Prefbyters,  who  have  gone 
off  the  ftage,"  in  this  article  in  fpeci- 
al,  "  that  they  could  not  be  removed  out 
of  the  place  where  they  were  fixed,  as 
they  had  removed  fome  of  their  Pref- 
byters from  their  honorable  miniftra- 
tions." 

This 


143  CLEMENT  of  Rome; 

This  is  the  unqueftionable  connexion 
fcf  Clement's  arguing  in  this  paragraph. 
Upon  which  I  would  appeal  to  any  perfon  of 
common  underftanding,  whether  he  could 
have  any  other  intention,  in  this  train  of 
reafoning,  than  to  offer  conviction  to   the 
church  of  Corinth,  of  their  faulty  con- 
duct in  "  carting  their  Prefbyters  out  of 
their  office  ?"  But  if  their  Prefbyters  had 
been   any  other  than  thofc  Bifhops1,  he 
had  fpoken  of  as  conftituted,   either  by 
the  Apoftles  themfelves,  of  other  famous 
men  afterwards*  what  pertinency  is  there 
in  this  method  of  reafoning  ?    He  men- 
tions only  Bifhops  and   Deacons  as  con- 
ftituted by  the   Apoftles,  or  to  be  con- 
ftituted  afterwards   by  others,  by  their 
dire&ion.     If  therefore  the  Prefbyters  of 
Corinth  had  not  been  in  the  number  of 
thofe  Bifhops*  they  had  not  adted  againft 
any  apoftolical  conftitution,  and    could 
not  fall  by  the  force   of  this  arguing  : 
whereas,  on  the  other  hand,  if  by   thefe 
Preyfbters  we  underftand  the  fame  order 
of  officers  with  the  Bifhops  here  fpokeri 
of,  and   confider  the  words  Bifhops  and 
Prefbyters,    as  only  different  names   to 
point  out  the  Tame  perfons,  the  reafoning 
will  not  only  be  clear  and  forceable,  but 

perfectly 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   143 

perfectly  confonant  to  the  connexion  of 
his  whole  difcourfe ;  which  fo  obvioufly 
and  necefTarily  leads  to  this,  that  I  arn 
well  jatisfied  no  art  of  man  can  elude  thp 
evidence  there  is  for  it. 

Besides,  if  thefe  Bifhops  were  an  or? 
der  of  officers  fuperior  to  Prefbyters,  why 
fhould  Clement  fo  particularly  mention 
the  apoftolic  conftitution  of  Bifhops, 
about  whom  (as  officers  diftinft  from, and 
fuperior  to,  Prefbyters)  there  is  no  hint, 
in  the  epiftle,  as  if  there  was  any  conten- 
tion ;  and,  at  the  fame  time,  omit  faying 
a  word  about  the  conftitution  of  Prefby- 
ters, (as  he  certainly  does,  if  they  are  an 
order  diftinct  from  Bifhops)  againft  whom 
the  church  of  Corinth  had  rofe  up  in  the 
mod  unfeemly  manner  ?  This  feems  al- 
together unintelligible  :  efpecially  con- 
fidering,  it  is  the  governing  defign  of  this 
whole  epiftle,  and  of  this  paragraph  in 
fpecial,  to  correit  the  conduct  of  the  Co- 
rinthians towards  their  Presbyters, 
and  fet  them  right  in  their  behavior  for 
time  to  come. 

And    now,  being  let    into   the    true 

meaning  of  Clement's  Bifhops,  the  con- 

V  troverfy 


i44  CLEMENT  of  Rome; 

trcverfy,  among  the  learned,  about  that 
difficult  word  epinomin,  in  that  part  of  the 
paragraph,  where  mention  is  made  of  the 
apoftolic  provifion  for  the  fucceflion  of 
Bifllops,  is  quite  fuperfeded.  For  whe- 
ther wc  translate  it  with  Arch-Bifhop 
Wake,  and  Boyfes,  direction  ;  or  with 
Burton,  Salmafius,  and  Bifliop  Pearfon, 
command;  or  with  Young  and  Dr.  Ham- 
mond, description,  lift,  roll,  catalogue  : 
I  fay,  in  which  foever  of  thefe  fenfes  we 
take  the  word,  it  matters  not ;  fo  long  as 
the  Bifhops  in  Clement  are  precilely  the 
fame  order  of  officers  with  Prefbyters. 

Only  I  cannot  omit  obferving,  that 
the  conftruftion,  which  fuppofes  the 
Apoftles  to  have  given  a  lift,  or  roll  of 
fucceflbrs,  does  not  feem  at  all  probable. 
For,  as  the  learned  Boyfe  argues  againft 
this  interpretation,  "  Who  ever  heard  of 
"  fuch  a  lift  or  roll?  Wash  a  catalogue  of 
46  all  their  fucceflbrs  to  the  worlds  end  ? 
41  Or  a  lift  of  their  fucceflbrs,  for  one, 
44  two,  or  three  centuries  ?  How  came 
u  this  lift,  or  roll  to  be  loft  ?  when  the 
44  prefervation  of  it  would  have  been  of 
€<  fuch  vaft  confequence,  to  prevent  all 
£?  difputes  about  future  ele&ions.     For 

"  doubtleft 


CLEMENT  of  Rome,  i45 

6t  doubtlcfs  the  churches  would  readily 
ff  have  concurred  in  the  choice  of  fuch, 
u  astheApoftles,  from  certain  foreknow- 
"  ledge,   h^d  marked   down  for  Bifhops 
"  and  Deacons.      So  that  it  is  certain, 
ft  either  this  catalogue  was  never  given 
"  by  them,  or  thofe  churches,  to  whom 
?!  it  was  given,  were  guilty  of  inexcqfa- 
?'  ble  negligence,  in  Tuffering  fo  yalua- 
"  ble  a  roll,  that  would  have  cleared  up 
"  the  uninterrupted  line   of   EpifcopaJ 
ff  fucceffion,  beyond  difpute,  to  be  fa  ut- 
"  terly  loft,  that   no  notion,  no  mqnu- 
"  ment  of  it,  fhould  be  heard  of  to  this 
"  day,  and  no  Biftjop  ever  once  appeal 
"  to  it,  to  juftifie  his  claim  againfl  com^ 
"  petitors.,, 

The  evidence  fupppofed  to  he  con- 
tained in  this  epiftle,  for  th$  fuperiority 
of  Biftiops  to  Prefbyters,  being  thus  re- 
moved out  of  the  way ;  I  am  under  the 
fairer  advantage  to  propofe  a  few  pbfer- 
vations,  which  feem  abundantly  fuffici- 
ent  to  fhow  it  to  have  been  the  mind  of 
Clement,  that  Biftiops  and  Prelbyters 
were,  in  his  day,  one  and  the  fame  or- 
der of  officers  in  the  Chriftian  chinch. 
And, 

I.  I  OBSERTC; 


146    CLEMENT  of  Rom£. 

1.  I  observe,  when  Clement  fetshim- 
felf,  ex  profeflb,  to  give  an  account  of  the 
apoilolical  conftitution  of  officers  in  the 
Chriftian  church  ;  and  this,  not  in  one 
or  two  particular  places  only,  but 
throughout  cities  and  countries,  as  they 
travelled  to  propagate  the  faith  of  Chrift  ; 
he  makes  mention  only  of  the  two  or- 
ders of  Bifhops  and  Deacons.  And  it 
is  remarkable,  how  exactly  confonant  this 
account  is,  to  the  fcripture  account  of  the 
conftitution  of  the  chinch  of  Philippi  ; 
in  writing  to  whom,  the  Apoiile  Paul 
takes  notice  of  no  other  officers  among 
them,  lave  only  Bifhops  and  Deacons. 
And  the  fame  Apoftle  writing  to  Timo- 
thy about  church  officers,  defcribes  only 
the  qualifications  of  Bifhops  and  Dea- 
cons. 

2.  I  observe  what  is  yet  more  full  to 
my  purpofe,  thofe  Bifhops, Clement  men- 
tions as  conftituted  by  the  Apoftles,  or 
qther  famous  men  afterwards,  were  one 
and  the  fame  order  of  men  with  Prefby- 
ters  :  otherwife,  he  paries  over  a  whole 
order  of  ecclefiaftical  officers  ;  and  this, 
zx.  a  time  when  he  had  undertaken  to  ex- 
hibit an  account  of  the  apoftolic  coufti- 

tution 


CLEMENT  of  Rome 


H7 


Union  of  officers,  in  theChriftian  church  j 
which  cannot  but  be  thought  an  inex- 
cufable  omiffion.  The  only  officers  he 
takes  notice  of,as  appointed  by  the  Apof» 
ties,  are  Biihops  and  Deacons.  But  if  by 
the  term  Biihops,  he  does  not  mean  the 
fame  kind  of  officers  with  thofe  that  are 
tailed  Prefbyters,  he  has  certainly  not 
faid  a  word  about  any  appointment  of 
this  order  of  officers  j  which  is  unac- 
countably ftrange,  confidering  he  makes 
paiticular  mention  of  the  lower  order  in 
the  church,  that  of  Deacons.  And  in-* 
deed,  unlefs  we  fuppofe  Clement  to  mean 
precifely  the  fame  fort  of  officers,  when 
he  ufes,  fometimes  the  word  Bifhops,  and 
iometirnes  the  word  Prefbyters,  we  (hall 
make  him  a  moft  blundering  writer.  For 
one  of  the  main  arguments  he  ufes,  to 
reflect  blame  upon  the  church  of  Co- 
rinth, for  riling  up  againft  their  Pref- 
byters, is,  the  apoftohc  confutation  of 
Bifhops  :  but  if  by  this  term,  he  did  not 
mean  the  fame  fort  of  officers,  where 
would  be  the  force  of  this  reafoning  r" 
How  would  it  tend  to  afford  conviction 
to  the  Corinthians,  that  they  had  done  ill 
in  a&ing  againft  their  Prefbyters,  to  be 
told  of  the  apoftolic  appointment  of  one 

order 


i48    CLEMENT  of  Rome0 

order  of  officers  fuperior  to  their  Prefby- 
ters, and  another  inferior  to  them;  while, 
at  the  fame  time,  not  a  word  is  faid  whe- 
ther the  order  of  Prefbyters  was  ever  con- 
flicted   at  all  ?    Such  a  method  of  rea- 
foning   is  certainly  yery   extraordinary, 
and  much  better  calculated  to  encourage 
them  in  their  fedition,  than  to  bring  them 
to  repentance,  and  put  a  flop  to  it.     JJi- 
fhops   thereifore   with  Clement   are    the 
fame  rank    of  officers  with   Prefbyters. 
And,  as  if  he  had  it  in  defign,  that  we 
fhould  not  miftake  him,  he  plainly  fpeaks 
of  the  Prefbyters  of  Corinth,  as  iome  of 
thofe  very  Bifhops  that  were  conftituted 
either  by  the  Apoftles,  or  others  after- 
wards by  their  direction  :   for  he  fuppofes 
them  placed  in  the  epifcopal  office,  in  that 
he  dire&ly  finds  fault  with  the  Corinthi- 
ans "  for  calling  them  out  of  {heir  Epif» 
copacy." 

And  upon  this,  it  is  nioft  obvious  to 
take  notice  of  the  perfeft  harmony  there 
is,  between  the  language  of  Clement 
and  the  Apoftle  Paul ;  who,  when  he 
had  left  Titus  in  Crete  to  ordain  Elders 
in  every  city,  writes  to  him  to  acquaint 
him  with  the  qualifications  that  ought  to 

be 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.    149 

be  found  in  thofe,  who  were  to  be  confti- 
tuted  BifHops  ;  evidently  ufing  the  words, 
PrefbyterS  and  Bifhops,  as  fignifying  the 
fame  order  of  church  officers.  The  Evan- 
gelift  Luke  likewife  fpeaks  of  the  Apof- 
tles,  as  ordaining  Elders  in  every  church  ; 
which  is  mod  plainly  the  fame  account 
with  this  of  Clement,  who  mentions  them 
as  conftituting  Bifhops  in  the  churches 
they  founded  :  for  thcfe  Bifhops  were  no 
other  than  Elders  ;  and  if  Clement  had 
fpoken  of  the  Apoftles,  as  appointing 
Elders  or  Prefbyters  in  the  churches  they 
planted,  it  would  have  been  perfectly  the 
fame  thing  with  his  faying,  that  they  ap- 
pointed Bifhops. 

3.  I  observe,  as  a  yet  further  confir- 
mation of  what  we  are  upon,  that  Pref- 
byter-Bifhops  are  the  higheft  order  of  ec- 
clefiaftical  officers  fpoken  ofinthisepiftle. 
They  are  the  only  perfons  mentioned  as 
"  fet  over  the  church  of  Corinth  j"  they 
ire  the  only  perfons  that  church  are  ex- 
horted to  be  "  in  fubjeclion  to  :"  nor  is 
there  a  word  lifpe  1  of  any  duty  owing 
from  them  to  any  fuperior  order  of  men  > 
no,  nor  the  leaft  hint  given  of  any  fuch 
order  ;  which  leads  me  to  obferve  in  the 
laft  place,  4.  The 


150     CLEMENT  of  RomL 

4.  The  moral  aflurance  we  have,  that 
Clement  knew  of  no  Bifliop,  at  leaft,  in 
the  church  of  Corinth,  of  a  fuperior  or- 
der to  that  of  Prefbyter.— -Let  us  confider 
the  dire&ion  of  the  epiflle  :  it  runs  in 
that  ftile,  "  the  church  of  Rome   to  the 
church  of  Corinth,"  without  any  notice 
at  all  of  their  Bifliop  f  which  is  fo  much 
unlike  the  manner  of  inferiptions  in  after 
times,   when  Bifhops  were  diftinguifhed 
from  Prefbytere,  that,  from  this  circurn- 
fiance  only,  it  looks  probable,  there  was 
nofingleBifliop  at  the  head  of  that  church. 
But  the  probability  will  be  heightened  in- 
to certainty,  if  we  add,  there  is  as  intire 
filence,  through  the  whole  epiftle,  of  the 
Bifliop  of  this  church  :    whereas,  if  any 
fingle  perfon  had  been  at  their  head  of 
an  order  diftinft   from  their  Prefbyters, 
and  invefted  with  a  fuperior  right  of  au- 
thoritatively managing  in  all  ecclefiafti- 
cal  affairs,   it  is  not  conceivable  but  he 
muft,   fome   how   or    other,   have   been 
plainly  pointed  out. 

The  firft,  mofl  fuperior,  and  diftin* 
guiflied  officer  in  this  church,  could  not 
but  have  been  intcrefted  in  the  fliameful 
difturbance  that  was  the  occafion  of  this 

letter. 


CLEMENT  of  Rome,   ut 

letter.  He  muft  have  joined,  either  with 
the  Prefbyters,  or  the  people,  or  have 
been  an  idle  fpe&ator  of  the  prefent  quar- 
rel ;  and,  in  either  cafe,  there  are  great 
difficulties  to  be  accounted  for. 

;  If  he  had  been  united  with  the  JPref- 
byters,  and  made  ufe  of"  his  Epifcopal  au- 
thority to  oblige  the  people  to  peace,  and 
their  duty  to  their  Prefbyters,  it  is  ft  range 
they  are  no  where  reprimanded  for  difre- 
garding  the  authority  of  their  Bifhop  !  nor 
can  it  well  be  imagined*  that  Clement 
fliould  be  fo  fevere  upon  them  for  their  in- 
decent carriage  to  their  Prefbyters,  and  yet 
filently  pafsover  their difobedience  to  their 
Bifhop  ;  which  muft  furely  have  deferveci 
a  rebuke,  if  they  had  oppofed  his  author 
rity,  in  their  ufage  of  their  Prefbyters. 

Or,  if  he  had  favoured  the  Corinthian, 
dfurch,  in  their  ill  treatment  of  theif 
Prefbyters,  it  is  much  he  is  not  reafoned 
with,  that  he  might  be  convinced  of  his 
jmiftake  :  fince  the  church  are  fo  fharply 
rebuked,  and  earneftly  exhorted  to  re1- 
pentance  and  amendment  :  nor  is  it  feafy 
to  conceive  of  the  propriety  (according 
to  the  epifcopal  fcheme)  of  their  being 
X  thus 


152  CLEMENT  of  Rome, 

thus  blamed,  and  condemned,  while  they 
had  the  countenance  of  their  Bifhop  in 
what  they  did.  Upon  this  fuppofition, 
the  firft  thing  neceflary,  in  order  to  peace, 
muft  have  been  to  have  offered  conviction 
to  the  Bifhop,  and  engaged  him  to  defifl 
from  encouraging  the  church,  in  their  fe- 
ditious  practice  againft  their  Prefbyters. 

Or  if  we  might  imagine  it  poffible  for 
a  Bifhop,  to  be  fo  thoughtlefs  of  the  peace 
and  quiet  of  his  church,  as  to  be  an  un- 
concerned fpeclator  of  this  faction,  which 
had  increafed  to  fuch  an  height,  as  to  ex- 
cite the  companion  of  the  church  of  Rome, 
it  is  wonderful  he  is  not  admoniHied,  at 
lead,  in  a  foft  and  gentle  manner,  of  his 
negle£f  ;  and  befought  to  interpofe  with 
his  authority  to  heal  this  divilion  !  But 
inftead  of  this,  to  complete  th|  unaccoun- 
table conduct  both  of  Clement,  and  the 
church  of  Rome,  though  the  Bifhop  was 
the  moft  futable  perfon  to  be  applied  to 
in  this  cafe,  neither  Prefbyters,  nor  people 
are  directed  to  refer  the  matter  to  him  ; 
nor  to  afk  his  advice  :  nor  is  his  name, 
or  any  thing  relating  to  him,  or  his  office, 
fo  much  as  diftantly  hinted  at. 


Oil 


CLEMENT  of  Rome.   153 

Or  if  it  be  fuppofed,  without  any  ap- 
pearance of  proof,  that  the  church  of 
Corinth  happened  to  be  without  a  Bifhop, 
j°uft  at  the  time  of  this  fedilion,  and  the 
compofure  of  this  epiflle  :  I  fay,  even 
fuppofing  this,  meerly  to  ferve  an  hypo- 
thecs, it  is  a  great  difficulty  no  mention 
ihould  be  made  of  their  late  Bifhop,  nor 
any  advice  given  them  to  come  into  a  fpee- 
dy  choice  of  a  new  Bifhop,  as  the  mod 
finable  remedy  to  heal  their  differences. 
This  was  thought  one  of  the  beft  expedi- 
ents to  compofe  differences,  in  after  times. 
And  it  is  the  very  method,  the  Prefbyters 
of  Rome,  when  that  fee  was  vacant  by  the 
death  of  Fabian,  mention  in  their  letter 
toCyprian,  in  order  to  the  removal  of  their 
difficulties.  And  it  was  as  fit  a  method 
in  the  days  of  Clement,  as  in  the  days  of 
Cyprian  L  and  no  other  reafon  can  be  af- 
figned  of  his  being  wholly  filent  about  it, 
but  that  he  knew  of  no  difference  between, 
the  order  of  Bifhops,  and  Prefbyters. 

Upon  the  whole,  if  Bifhops,  in  the  days 
of  Clement,  were  officers  in  the  church 
any  way  refembling  our  modern  Prelates, 
thefe  are  certainly  molt  inexcufable  omif- 
fions  :  nor  are  they  capable  of  being  ac- 
counted for  toreafonable  fatjsfa&iqn.       I 


154  CLEMENT  of  Rome. 

I   shall    finifh    my    examination   ot 
Clement,    with  inferring  the  opinion   of 
two   as    learned   men    as    ever  appeared, 
upon    the    matter    we    have    laft    been 
difputing.      "  They  that  can  find  any  one 
fingle    Bifnop   at    Corinth,  at  the   time, 
when  Clement  wrote  this  epiftle  to  them, 
muft    have   better    eyes,    and    judgment, 
than    the  defervedly   admired  Grotius"  jj 
io  fpeaks  the  great  Bilhop  of  Worcefter. 
Grotius's  Judgment  (here  referred  to)  was 
plainly  this,  he  mentions  it  as  a  proof  of 
the  antiquity  and  genuinenefs  of  the  pre- 
sent Copy  of  Clement's  epiftle,  "  That  he 
no  where  takes  notice  of  that  exorbitant 
power  of  Bifliops,  which   was  firft  intro- 
duced in  Alexandria,  after  the  death  of 
Mark,  and  from  that  example  into  other 
churches  ;  but  evidently  (hows,  that  the 
churches  were  governed  by  the  common 
council  of  Prefbyters,  who,  by  him,  and 
the  Apoftle  Paul,  are  called  Bifliops." 


PQLYCARP. 


""? T- 


POLYCARP. 


|#}  character,     writings,    and    teftimo?iie$ 
from  them,  with  obfer  vat  ions  and  remarks* 


PREVIOUS  to  what  may  be  offered  re- 
lative to  this  Father,  I  would  give 
notice,that  the  order  of  time  is  a  little  broke 
in  upon,  by  giving  him  a  place  here  ;  for 
his  "  epiflle  to  the  Philippians"  was  not 
wrote  until  after  the  death  of  Ignatius, 
who  muft  therefore  have  wrote  before 
him.  But,  as  there  are  fome  im- 
portant paflages,  in  his  "  epiftle,"  the 
reader  (liquid  be  acquainted  with,  before 
he  comes  to  Ignatius,  it  was  thought  beft 
to  place  him  firft.  Having  obferved  this, 
I  go  on  j 

Polycar? 


156     P   O   L   Y   G   A   R    P. 

Pol yc arp  had  his  Lirth  in  the  apoftolic 
age;  and  probably  not  a  great  many  years 
on  this  fide,  the  middle  of  the  firft  cen- 
tury. Some  modern  authors  fpeak  of 
him  as  born  in  Smyrna;  as  being  a  flave 
jn  his  younger  years,  and  bought  by  a 
pertain  Lady  named  Calefto,  who,  toge- 
ther with  giving  him  his  freedom,  in- 
ftrqfted  him  in  tbeChriftian  religion,  and 
afterwards  made  him  her  heir.  But  as 
thefe  accounts,  with  many  other  cf  a  like 
import,  are  extracted  from  writers  great- 
ly remote  from  the  age  in  which  Poly- 
carp  lived,  and  that  were  too  much  given 
to  the  romantic  ftrain,  they  are  not  to  be 
depended  on. 

It  may,  upon  much  better  authority, 
beefteemed  a  jnft  ftroke  in  his  character, 
that  he  was  one  that  "  fat  under  the 
teaching  of  the  Apoftles,"  and  was-  fa- 
miliarly if  converfant  with  thofe  that 
knew  our  Lord,"  and  particularly  " 
with  the  Apoftle  John."  This  ac- 
count we  have  from  Irenaeus,  which  we 
may  the  rather  give  credit  to,  becaufe  he 
fpeaks  not  only  of  his  having,  "  in  his 
younger  years,   ken   J?olycarp  ;"  but  as 

f'  retaining 


P   O   L   Y   C   A  R   P.     157 

h  retaining  in  his  mind  a  diftincl  remem* 
brance  of  having  heard  him  relate  thefa 
things. " 

He  likewife  makes  mention  of  him  33 
Bifhop  of  Smyrna,  and  as  placed  in  this 
office  by  theApoftles  ;  though  Tertulliaii 
names  none  of  theApoftles,  lave  "  John*" 
as  having,  an  hand  in  his  conftitutiort* 
And  Eufebius  only  (ays  in  general,  "  Hi 
was  made  Bifhop  by  thofe,  who  faw  tha 
Lord,  and  miniftred  to  him."  But  how- 
ever it  might  be  as  to  this  circumftaftcei 
there  is  no  difficulty  about  the  thing  it- 
felf.  He  is  readily  allowed  to  halve  been 
Bilhop  of  Smyrna. 

And  from  hence  a  mighty  argument  5§ 
drawn,  in  favor  of  his  having  been  of  art 
order  in  the  church,  fuperior  to  that  of 
Prefbyters;  efpecially,  when*  hi  conjunct 
tion  herewith,  that  is  fuppofed  to  be  true, 
which  Arch-Bifhop  Ufher  has  endea- 
vored to  prove  to  be  fo,  namety,  That 
he  was  Bifhop  of  Smyrna,  when  the 
Apoftle  John  fent  his  "  apocalyptical 
letter"  to  the  "  Angel  of  that  church." 
But  the  foundation  of  the  argument  at 
once  vanifhes,  when  it  is  confidered,thati 

in 


i58     P   O   L   Y   C   A   R   P. 

in  the  age  of  Polycarp,  no  fuch  thing 
as  a  diftinftibn  of  order,  between  Bi- 
fliops  and  Prefbyters,  was  known  in  the 
church.  This  we  have  already  proved 
from  Clement  of  Rome,  and  Hermas, 
both  Polycarp's  contemporaries  ;  and 
fhall  further  confirm  from  Polycarp  him- 
felf,  when  we  come  to  take  notice  of  his 
"  epiftle  to  the  Philippians."  And  what 
is  particularly  obfervable,  in  the  cafe  of 
Polycarp,  he  is  by  Irenaeus  called  Pref- 
byter,  as  wdl  a$  Bifhop.  In  his  epiftle 
to  Florinus,  that  is  the  ftile  in  which  he 
fpeaks  of  him,  "Polycarp,  [apoftolik'Gs  Pref- 
buteros]  the  apoftolical  Prefbyter"  ;  which 
is  the  more  worthy  of  notice,  becaufe, 
with  Irenaeus,  the  reciprocal  ufe  of  the 
words*  Bifhop  and  Prefbyter,  is  very 
common.  And  herein  (as  we  fhail  fee  fri 
the  progrefs  of  this  work)  there  is  a  won- 
derful agreement  among  the  writers  of 
this  age,  Ignatius  only  excepted,  which 
we  fhall  account  for  afterwards.  So  that 
if  we  fhouldj  even,  fuppofe,  the  "  An- 
gel of  the  church  of  Smyrna'  to  be  Po- 
lycarp, a  then  Bifhop  of  that  church,  fx> 
long  as  we  are  juft  to  interpret  the  word 
Bifhop,  in  the  fenfe,  in  which  it  was  un- 
derftaod,  in  this  age  of  Chriftianity,  no- 
thing 


P   O   L   Y    C   A   R   P. 


1S9 


thing  more  can  be  made  of  it,  than  that 
he  was  an  officer  in  that  church,  of  the 
fame  order  with  the  reft  of  the  Prefby- 
ters  of  it  :  though  he  might  be  the  moll 
eminent,  known,  and  diftinguifhed  among 
them  ;  and  the  molt  proper,  upon  thefe 
accounts,  to  receive  a  letter  which  con- 
cerned the  whole  church. 

It  is  commonly,  in  modern  accounts 
of  the  life  of  Polycarp,  mentioned  as  an 
article  particularly  redounding  to  his  ho- 
nor, that  the  venerable  Ignatius  had  fucli 
an  opinion  of  him,  as  a  truly  apoftolical 
man,  that  he  pitched  upon  him,  as  the 
moft  fuitable  perfon  he  could  commend 
the  care  of  his  church  at  Antioch  to, 
when  he  was  parted  from  them,  and 
on  his  journey  to  Rome,  to  fufFer  mar- 
tyrdom. He  is  likewife  highly  efteem- 
ed  in  love,  and  reverenced,  as  being  the 
fuppofed  colleftor  of  the  epiftles  of  Ig- 
natius :  which,  together  with  one  of  his 
own,  he  is  faid  to  have  fent,  by  one 
Crefcens,  to  the  church  of  Philippi. — But 
thefe  things  we  (hall  have  occafion  to  ex- 
amine, at  large,  in  a  more  proper  place  ; 
and  fo  lhall  leave  them  at  prefent. 

Y 

Nothing 


160     P   O   L   Y   C   A   R    R 

Nothing  more  is  found  recorded  of  this 
primitivel/ather,  until  the  eaftern  and  wef- 
tern  churches  began  to  controvert  about 
the  time  of  keeping  eafter;  which  occafion- 
ed  his  going  to  Rome  (about  the  middle 
of  thefecond  century)  in  the  days  of  Ani- 
cetus,  to  confer  with  him  upon  that  mat- 
ter. And  notwithstanding  all  the  dif- 
courfc,  thefe  grave  Fathers  might  have  up- 
on this  head,  they  could  not  come  to  art 
agreement  ;  the  one  pleading  apoftolical 
practice  for  one  time  of  obferving  this 
feaft,  and  the  other  the  cuftom  of  his 
predeceflors,  even  up  to  the  Apoftles,  for 
another  :  yet  they  were  charitably  dif- 
pofed  towards  each  other  ;  which  they 
fignified,  by  communicating  together  : 
and  Anicetus,  for  the  reverence  he  had 
for  Polycarp,  gave  him  the  eucharift 
in  his  church  ;  after  which  they  ami- 
cably parted  ;  and,  as  Eufebius  fays,  "  in 
the  univerfal  church,  they  were  at  peace 
with  one  another." 

However  this  might  be,I cannot  help 
going  out  of  my  way  to  obferve,  that  peace 
did  not  continue  very  long  ;  for  the  con- 
troverfy,  far  from  having  a  final  flop  now 
put  to  it,  flrangely  increafed  afterwards, 

until 


P   O    L   Y   C   A   R    P.     161 

until  it  had  even  ©verfpread  the  whole 
Chriftian  world,  and  filled  it  with  un- 
charitablenefs  and  contention.  It  feems 
to  have  been  at  a  monftrous  height,  to- 
wards the  latter  end  of  the  fecond  centu- 
ry, in  the  days  of  Victor,  who  (to  rely  on 
the  authority  of  Sir  Peter  King)  was 
fo  very  turbulent  and  imperious,  that  he 
excommunicated  the  Afiatics,  for  their 
not  complying  with  the  church  of  Rome 
in  this  matter  ;  condemning  them  for 
Heretics,  and  beftowing  upon  them  a 
long  and  frightful  name,  becaufe  they 
kept  their  eafter  upon  the  fourteenth  day 
after  the  appearance  of  the  moon,  or  at 
full  moon,  on  what  day  foever  it  hap- 
pened. Nor  was  this  controverfy  fettled, 
until  the  council  of  Nice,  anno  325,  by 
their  authority,  decided  it  ;  decreeing, 
that,  throughout  the  whole  Chriftian 
world,  eafter  fhould  be  obferved,  not  on 
the  day  that  the  Jewifh  paflbver  fell,  that 
is,  at  full  moon  ;  but  on  the  Lord's  day 
enfuing,  as  it  was  afterwards  kept. 

The  learned  Stillingfleet  improves  this 
controverfy,  by  deducing  from  it  an  ar- 
gument againft  the  certainty  of  preten- 
ded apoftolic  tradition,  in  a  maiyier  well 

worth 


f( 


162    P   O   L   Y   C   A   R   P. 

worth  our  inferting.  "  For  my  part 
"  (lays  he)  I  fee  not  how  any  man,  that 
"  would  fee  reafon  for  what  he  does,  can 
"  adhere  to  the  church  for  an  unqueftio- 
"  liable  tradition,  received  from  theApof- 
"  ties  ;  when,  in  the  cafe  of  keeping  eaf- 
*'  ter,  whether  with  the  Jews  on  the 
"  fourteenth  moon,  or  only  on  the  Lord's 
il  day,  there  was  io  much  unreafonable 
"  heat  fhewed  on  both  fides,  and  fuch 
'*■  confidence  that,  on  either  fide,  their 
tradition  was  apoftolical.  They  had 
herein  all  the  advantages  imaginable, 
in  order  to  the  knowing  the  certain- 
ty of  the  thing  then  in  queftion  among 
them  ;  as  their  nearnefs  to  apoftolical 
times,being  but  one  remove  from  them ; 
yea,  the  perfons  contending,  pleading 
perfonal  acquaintance  with  fome  of 
the  Apoftles  themfelves,  as  Polycarp 
with  John,  and  Anicetus  of  Rome  that 
he  had  the  tradition  from  Peter :  and 
yet,  fo  gieat  were  the  heats,  foirrecon- 
cileable  the  controverfy,  that  they  pro- 
ceeded to  dart  the  thunderbolt  of  ex- 
communication in  one  anothers  faces." 


I  will  here  add, what  makes  this  con- 
troverfy the  more  ftrange,  is,  that  there 

1$ 


P  O   L   Y  G   A   R  P.     163 

is  no  account  in  fcripture  of  the  inftitu- 
tion  of  any  fuch  annual  feaft  ;  nor  the 
leaft  intimation,  that  it  was  ever  ob- 
ferved  by  Chriftians  in  the  Apoftle'sdays. 
Upon  which,  I  cannot  reftrain  myfelffrom 
tranfcribing  the  thoughts  of  Socrates,  one 
of  our  moft  ancient  and  valuable  eccle- 
fiaftical  hiftorians,  upon  this  head.  *  Says 
he,  "  Neither  the  ancients,  nor  the  mo- 
"  derns,  who  have  fludioufly  followed 
"  the  Jews,  had,  in  my  judgment,  any 
"  juft  or  rational  caufe  of  contending  fo 
"  much  about  this  feftival.  For  they 
<s  confidered  not  with  themfelves,  that, 
"  when  the  Jewifh  religion  was  changed 
"  into  Chriftianity,  thofe  accurate  obfer- 
"  vances  ofthe  mofaic  law,  and  the  types 
"  of  things  future,  ceafed.  And  this  car- 
<(  ries  along  with  it,  its  own  demonftra- 
"  tion.  For  no  one  of  Chrift's  laws  has 
"  permitted  the  Chriftians  to  obferve  the 
"  rites  ofthe  Jews.  Moreover,  on  the 
€f  contrary,  the  Apoftle  has  expreflly  for- 
"  bid  this,  and  does  not  only  reject  cir- 
"  cumcifion,  but  always  advifes  againft 
"  contending  about  feftival  days.  Where- 
«  fore,  in  his  epiftle  to  theGalatians,  his 

"  words 

*  Lib.  V.  Cap.  22* 


164     P   O   L   Y   C.A   R    P. 

u  words  are  thefe,  u  Tell  me,  ye  that  de~ 
"  fire  to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye  not 
u  hear  the  law  ?"  And  having  fpent 
"  fome  few  words  in  his  difcourfe  here- 
u  of,  he  demonftrates,  that  the  people 
"  of  the  Jews  are  "  fervants,"  but  that 
u  thofe  who  followed  Chrift  are  "called 
"  to  liberty."  Moreover,  it  is  his  admo- 
"  nition,  "  that  days,  and  months,  and 
"  years,  fliould  in  no  wife  be  obferved". 
"  Befides,  in  his  epiftle  to  the  Coloflians, 
"  he  loudly  affirms, that  fuchobfervations 
"  "  are  a  fhadow."  Wherefore  he  fays, 
"  Let  no  man  judge  you  in  meat,  or  in 
"  drink,  or  in  refpedt  of  any  holy-day, 
"  or  of  the  new  moons,  or  of  the  fab- 
"  bath  days  ;  which  are  a  fliadow  of 
"  things  to  come."— The  Apoftles  there- 
"  fore,  and  the  gofpels,  have  no  where 
**  impofed  the  yoke  of  fervitude  on  thofe, 
"  who  have  approached  the  preaching  of 
"  faith  ;  but  have  left  the  feaft  of  ealfer, 
"  and  the  otheV  feftivals,  to  be  honored 
"  by  their  gratitude  and  benevolence, 
"  who  have  had  benefits  conferred  on  them 
"  on  thefe  days.  Wherefore,  in  regard 
"  men  love  feftivals,becaufe  thereon  they 
"  have  ceffation  from  their  labours,  each 
u  perfon,  in  every  place,  according  to  his 

a  own 


P   O   L   Y   G   A   R   P.     165 

"  own  pleafure,  has,  by  a  certain  cnftom, 
"  celebrated  the  memory  of  the  faving 
"  pafllon.  For  neither  our  Savior,  nor 
•'  his  Apoftles,  have  enjoined  us  by  any 
"  law  to  obferve  this  feftival.  Nor  have 
u  the  gofpels,  or  the  Apoftles,  threaten- 
"  ed  us  with  any  mulft,  punifhment,  or 
"  curfe,  as  the  mofaic  law  does  the  Jews. 
"  Moreover,  it  was  not  the  Apoftle's 
"  defign  to  make  laws  concerning  fefti- 
<c  val  days,  but  to  introduce  good  life  and 
<c  piety.  And  it  feems  to  me,  that,  as 
•*  many  other  things,  in  feveral  places, 
u  have  been  eftablifhed  by  cuftom,  fo  the 
"  feaft  of  eafter  alfo  had  a  peculiar  ob- 
*'  fervation  among  all  perfons,  from 
€t  fome  old  ufage,  in  regard  none  of  the 
"  Apoftles  (as  I  have  faid)  have  made 
€t  any  determinate  decree  about  it.  Now, 
•*  that  the  obfervation  of  this  feftival 
"  had  its  original,  among  all  men,  in 
"  the  primitive  times,  from  cuftom  ra- 
"  ther  than  law,  the  things  themfelves 
*<  do  demonftrate."  And  this  he  goes 
on  in  feveral  pages  clearly  to  make  out. 
But  I  muft  now  return, 

Polycarp,  being  at  Rome,did  not  for- 
get his  chara&er  as   a  minifter  of  Jefus 

Chrift  ; 


166     P   O   L   Y   C   A   R   P.    . 

Chrift  ;  but  fet  himfelf  to  defend  the  doc- 
trines of  the  gofpel :  which  he  did  to  good 
purpofe,  confirming  the  fouls  of  many, 
and  recovering  fome  from  the  poifonous 
errors  of  thofe  two  arch-heretics  Marci- 
on  and  Valentinus.  The  former  of  thefe 
he  once  accidentally  met  in  the  ftreets  of 
Rome,  but  had  no  other  converfation  with 
him,  than  to  let  him  know,  that  he  efteem- 
ed  him  to  be  the  "  firft-born  of  fatan." 
This  may  pofiibly  be  thought  a  rough 
compliment  ;  but  it  is  a  ftrong  argu- 
ment of  his  great  indignation  again!! 
thofe,  who  had  fo  abominably  corrupted 
the  faith  of  Chrift.  Irenaeus  attributes 
this  feveiity  of  language  to  his  flrifl  ad- 
herence to  that  apoftolic  rule,  "  A  man 
that  is  an  heretic,  after  the  fir  ft  and  fe- 
cond  admonition,  reject  :  knowing  that 
he  that  isfuch  is  perverted,  and  finneth, 
being  condemned  of  himfelf/' 

The  next  thing  we  meet  witb,concern- 
ing  Polycarp,  relates  to  his  death  j  which 
he  did  not  fufFer  until  he  had  long  la- 
bored in  the  fervice  of  Chrift.  He  is 
univerfally  acknowledged  to  have  lived 
to  be  very  old,  not  under  ninety  ;  and 
fome  think,  confiderably  upwards   of  an 

hundred 


POLYCARP.    167 

hundred  years  :  and  yet,  he  did  not  go 
out  of  the  world  in  the  ordinary  way,  but 
fell  a  martyr  in  the  caufe  of  Chrifl.  We 
have  extant  an  "  epiftle  of  the  church  of 
Smyrna",  giving  a  particular  account  of 
Iiis  martyrdom,  as  to  its  time,  occafion, 
manner,  and  circumftances.  Dr.  Cave 
calls  it  a  piece  "  that  challenges  a  lingu- 
lar efteem  and  reverence,  both  for  its  fub- 
ject  matter,  and  antiquity;  with  the  rea- 
ding of  which,  he  joins  with  Scaliger  in 
laying,  every  ferious  and  devout  mind 
muft  needs  be  fo  affected,  as  to  think  he 
can  never  have  enough  of  it."  And  it  is 
very  true,  fome  parts  of  this  epiftle  are 
well  calculated  to  affect  a  ferious  and  well- 
difpofed  mind  ->  but  then,  it  has  fuch  a 
mixture  of  what  fo  evidently  carries  the 
face  of  meer  fable,  as  to  make  it  quefli- 
onable,  whether  it  be  an  exa£t  repre- 
fentation  of  what  was  real  fa£t.  An  in* 
fiance  of  this  we  have  in  Sect,  xv,  where 
we  read  of  "  the  flames  difpofing  them- 
fclves  into  the  refemblance  of  an  arch, 
like  the  fails  of  a  fliip  fwelled  with  the 
wind,  gently  encircling  the  body  of  the 
martyr  ;  who  flood  all  the  while  in  the 
midft,  not  like  roafted  flefh,  but  gold  pu- 
rified in  the  furnace ;  his  body  fending 
Z  forth 


i68    P   O  L   Y   C   A   R   P. 

forth  a  delightful  fragrancy,  like  frank- 
incenfc  or  coftly  fpices,  prefenting  it- 
felf  to  the  fenfes  of  the  by-ftanders."  Of 
the  fame  nature  is  fe£h  xvi,  which  fpeaks 
of  "  his  body  as  incapable  of  being  con- 
fnmed  by  the  fire  ;  upon  which  the  ex- 
ecutioner, being  commanded,  thruft  a 
Taunce  into  Mm  :  which  he  had  no  fooner 
done,  but  a  prgeon  came  forth  out  of  the 
wound  ;  and,  together  therewith,  fuch  a 
large  quantity  of  blood  as?  extinguished 
the  fire."  Some  other  things,  in  the  like 
ftiain,  are  here  to  be  met  with  ;  which, 
perhaps,  not  many  will  find  a  faith  wide- 
enough  to  fwallow^ 

It  mud  not  indeed  be  concealed,  Eu- 
febius  has  thought  it  worth  while,  not 
only  to  mention  this  "  epiffle,"  but  to 
give  the  greateft  part  of  it  a  place  in  his 
m  ecclefiaftical  hiftory."  But  then,  it 
ought  to  be  obferved,  he  is  the  firft  wri- 
ter that  takes  any  notice  of  it.  And 
if  his  mentioning  it  be  ufed  as  an  argu- 
ment to  cftablifh  its  authority,  the  total 
filence  of  antiquity,  from  the  time  of  its 
fuppofed  compofure  to  his  day,  which 
was  at  leaft  an  hundred  and  fifty  years, 
may  be  oppofed  thereto  as  a  counter-ba- 
lance. 


P   O   L   Y   C   A   R   P,     169 

lance.  The  Englifh  reader  may  meet 
with  this  "  epiftle"  in Arch-Bifhop  Wake's 
*  apoftolical  fathers,"  complete,  or  the 
fubftanceof  it,  in  Dr.  Cave's  "  lives  of  the 
primitive  Fathers,"  and  the  "  biographia 
ecclefiaftica"  of  an  anonimous  author, 

I  shall  obferve  nothing  further  of 
Polycarp,  but  that  the  learned  are  at  va- 
riance about  the  particular  time  of  his 
death.  Bifliop  Pearfon  fuppofes  him  to 
have  been  martyred  under  Antoninus 
Pius,  in  the  year  147  :  but  he  is  ge- 
nerally thought  to  have  fuffered  under 
Aurelius  Verus  ;  fome  think  in  the  year 
j  67;  others  in  169;  others  in  170;  others 
in  175.  His  memory  is  faid  to  be  cele- 
brated by  the  Greek  church,  February  23  1 
by  the  Latin,  January  26. 

H\$  Writings* 

IREN&US,  in  his  letter  to  Florinus; 
mentions  "feveralepiftles"  whichhe  wrote; 
fome  to  the  "  neighbouring  churches  for 
their  confirmation  in  the  faith;"  and  others 
to  certain  of  his  "  brethren  for  their  en- 
couragement and  admonition."  But  what 
the  character  of  thefe  pieces  was,  or  to 

whom 


170    P   O   L   Y   C   A   R   P. 

whcm  in  particular  they  were  fent,  he  no- 
where lays ;  nor  can  it  be  known  at  this 
diftance  :  nor  is  it  a  matter  of  any  im- 
portance, fince  there  is,  at  prefent,  ex- 
tant nothing  of  Polycarp's,  lave  only  his 
"  epiftle  to  the  church  of  Philippi  :" 
Nor  indeed  have  we  this  extant,  com- 
plete in  its  original  Greek  ;  though  the 
dzfett  is,  in  fome  meafure,  made  up  by  a 
Latin  verfion,  that  is  very  ancient,  and 
feems  to  have  nothing  wanting. 

This  '*  epiftle"  is  cited  by  fome  of  the 
fathers,  and  fometimes  mentioned  with 
epithets  denoting  great  efteem  and  ho- 
nor. Eufebius  obferves  its  containing 
teftimonies  that  are  taken  out  of  the 
"  firft  epiftle  of  Peterf*  which  is  a  good 
circumftance  in  favor  of  the  copy  we  now 
have  -,  fince  thefe  references  are  here  to 
be  met  with.  Nor  may  I  omit  taking  no- 
tice of  the  manner  in  which  it  is  wrote  ; 
which  is  evidently  fuch,  as  favors  of  the 
true  primitive  purcnefs  and  fimplicity. 
A  celebrated  writer  ipeaks  of  it  in  that 
language,  "  It  feems  to  hold  a  great  af- 
"  finity,  both  in  ftile  and  fubftance,  with 
<c  Clement's  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  ; 
"  often   fuggefting  the  fame   rules,  and 

"  making 


POLYCARP, 


7* 


"  making  ufe  of  the  fame  words  and 
"  phrafes.--- It  is  indeed  a  pious  and  tru- 
"  ly  Chriftian  epiftle,  furnifhed  with 
h  fhort,  and  ufeful  precepts,  and  rules  of 
"  life,  and  penned  with  the  modefty  and 
"  fimplicity  of  the  apoftolic  times  ;  va- 
«  lued  by  the  ancients  next  to  the  wri- 
u  tings  of  the  holy  canon  ;  and  St.  Jerom 
"  tells  us  "  that,  even  in  his  day,  it  was 
"  read  in  Afiae  conventu,  in  the  public 
"  aflemblies  of  the  Aiian  church.,,  I  on- 
ly add,  it  was  probably  wrote  a  few  years 
after  the  entrance  of  the  fecond  century  ; 
not  far  from  the  time  of  Ignatius's  death. 

Testimonies    from   Polycarp's   epif- 
tle  to  the  Corinthians. 

The   inscription  to  the  epiftle. 

"  POLYCARP,  and  the  Presbyters 
that  are  with  him,  [Po/ukarpos,  kai  oi  sun 
auto  Prejbuteroi\  to  the  church  of  God 
that  is  at  Philippi,  [te paroikoufe  Pbilippois] 
mercy  unto  you,  and  peace,  from  God 
Almighty,  and  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
our  Savior,  be  multiplied." 

Sect. 


i7a    P  O   L   Y   G   A   R   P. 

Sect.  V.  ff  Knowing  therefore  that 
God  is  not  mocked,  we  ought  to  walk 
worthy  both  of  his  command,  and  of 
his  glory.  Alfo  the  Deacons  [Diakonoi] 
muft  be  blamelefs  before  him,  as  the 
minifters  of  God  in  Chrift,  and  not  of 
men.— In  like  manner,  the  younger  men 
muft  be  unblamable  in  all  things  :  above 
all,  taking  care  of  their  purity,  and  to  re- 
train themselves  from  all  evil.  For  it 
is  good  to  be  cut  off  from  the  lufts  that 
are  in  the  world  ;  becaufe  every  fuch  luft 
V  warreth  againft  the  fpirit."  And 
"  neither  fornicators,  nor  effeminate, 
nor  abufers  of  themfelvcs  with  mankind, 
fhall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  :"  nor 
they  who  do  fuch  things  as  are  foolifh 
and  unreafonable.  Wherefore  ye  muft 
needs  abflain  from  all  thefe  things  ;  be- 
ing fubjeft  to  the  Priefts  and  Deacons 
\upot offamenous  tois  Prejbuterois  kai  diako- 
nois]  as  unto  God,  and  Chrift.  The  vir- 
gins admonifh  to  walk  in  a  fpotlefs  and 
pure  confcience."  It  immediately  foK 
lows, 

Sect.  VI.  "  And  let  the  Elders  [Pref 
buteroi]  be  companionate  and  merciful 
fowards  all ;   turning   them   from  their 

errors  i 


POLYGARP. 


73 


errors  ;  feeking  out  thofe  that  are  weak  ; 
not  forgetting  the  widows,  the  fatherlefs, 
and  the  poor  ;  but  always  providing 
what  is  good  both  in  the  fight  of  God 
and  man  :  abftaining  from  all  wrath,  re- 
fpe£t  of  perfons,  and  unrighteous  judg- 
ment ;  and  efpecially  being  free  from  all 
covetoufnefs.  Not  eafy  to  believe  any 
thing  againft  any ;  not  fevere  in  judg- 
ment ;  knowing  that  we  are  all  debtors 
in   point  of  law".— 

Sect.  XI.  "I  am  greatly  afflicted  for 
Valens,  who  was  once  a  Prefbyter  [  qui 
/actus  eft  aliquando  Prefbyter  apud  vos  ] 
among  you,  that  he  fhould  fo  little  un- 
derftand  the  place  that  was  given  to  him 
in  the  church.  Wherefore  I  admonifh 
you,  that  ye  abftain  from  covetoufnefs  ; 
and  that  ye  be  chafte,  and  true  of  fpeech, 
"Keep  yourfelves  from  all  evil."  For  he 
that  in  thefe  things  cannot  govern  him- 
felf,  how  (hall  he  prefcribe  them  to  ano- 
ther r 

TtfERE  are  two  or  three  paffages  in 
this  epiftle  relative  to  Ignatius,  which  I 
fhall  infert  here  in  Arch-Bifhop  Wake's 
traflflation  ;   defiring  the  reader  to  take 

particular 


i74    P   O   L   Y   C   A   R   P. 

particular  notice  of  thofe  words  in  them* 
that  are  printed  in   capitals,  for  a  reaibn 
he  will  be  at  no  lofs  to  know,    when  he 
fees  what  is  hereafter  faid  upon  Ignatius's 
writings. 

Sect. IX.  "Wherefore  I  exhort  all  you, 
that  ye  obey  the  word  of  righteoufnefs, 
and  exercife  all  patience;  which  ye  have 

SEEN    SET     FORTH   BEFORE     YOUR     EYES, 

not  only  in  the  bleffed  Ignatius,  and 
Zozimus,  and  Rufus  j  but  in  others 
among  yourfelves  -,  and  in  Paul  himfelf, 
and  the  reft  of  the  Apoftles  :  being  con- 
fident of  this,  that  all  these  have 
not  run  in  vain,  but  in  faith  and 
righteoufnefs,  and   are   gone   to  the 

PLACE   THAT  WAS  DUE  TO   THEM    FROM 

the  Lord,  with  whom  aifo  they  suf- 
fered." 

Sect.  XIII.  "  Ye  wrote  to  me,  both 
ye  and  alfo  Ignatius,  that  if  any  one  went 
from  hence  intoSyria,  he  fhould  bring  your 
letters  with  him  ,  which  alfo  I  will  take 
care  of,  as  foon  as  1  fhall  have  a  conveni- 
ent opportunity,  either  by  my  feif,  or 
him  whom  I  fhall  fend  upon  your  ac- 
count.    The  epiftJes  of  Ignatius,  which 

he 


P   O   L   Y   G   A   R   P.     i75 

he  wrote  unto  us,  together  with  what 
others  of  his,  *  have  come  to  our  hands, 
we  have  lent  to  you,  according  to  your 
order  ;  which  are  fubjoined  to  this  epif- 
tie  :  by  which  ye  may  be  greatly  profit- 
ed ;  for  they  treat  of  faith  and  patience* 
and  of  all  things  that  pertain  to  edifica- 
tion in  the  Lord  Jefus." 


Sect.  XIV.  «  What  you  certainly 
know  of  Ignatius,  and  those  that 
are  with  him,  fignify  unto  us*" 

Observations  and  Remarks   on  th^ 
foregoing  teftimonies. 

UPON  a  review  of  the  above  paflages, 
nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  Poly- 
carp  fpeaks  only  of  two  orders  of  officers 
in  the  chureh  at  Philippi ;    in  which  he 
A  a  remarkably 

*  Tie  words  of  his,  the  Arch-Biftiop  has  been  pleafed 
arbitrarily  to  put  in,  without  giving  the  leaft  notice  that 
they  are  intirelyhis  own,  there  being  nothing  in  the  origi- 
nal to  anfwer  to  them  ;  hereby  unavoidably  leading  *5the 
Englifh  reader  into  the  notion  of  more  "Ignatianepiftles" 
than  Poivcarp  might  think  of.  We  may  hear  mare  of 
this  afterwards,  in  its  proper  place. 


276     P   O   L   Y   C  A   R    P. 

remarkably  harmonifes  with  Clement  of 
Rome  :  only,  whereas  Clement  promif- 
cuouily  makes  ufe  of  the  names,  Bifliop 
and  Prefbyter  to  fignify  the  higheft,  or 
fiift,  of  thefe  orders,  Polycarp  confines 
himfelf  to  the  term  Prefbyter,  not  fo  much 
as  once  naming  the  word  Bifliop,  any 
where  in  his  epiftle.  Nor  is  there  a  lefs 
agreement  between  Polycarp,  and  theApof- 
tle  Paul  upon  this  head  :  only,  whereas 
the  ApoftlePaul,  in  writing  to  this  church 
at  Philippi,  fpeaks  of  its  officers  in  the 
ftile  of  "  Bifhops  and  Deacons  jM  Poly- 
carp alters  the  denomination,  mentioning 
the  firft  of  thefe  orders,  under  the  name 
of  "  Prefbyters."  And  as  they  both  in- 
tend one  and  the  fame  order  of  officers, 
the  change  of  ftile,  in  which  they  (peak 
of  them,  is  a  fignal  illuftration  of  the 
Prelbyterian  glofs  upon  the  Apoftle's 
words  y  as  well  as  a  good  argument, 
that,  in  the  language  of  thefe  times, 
the  terms  Bifliop  and  Prefbyter  meant 
precifely  the  fame  order  of  ecclefiaiiical 
officers. 

Nor  does  Polycarp  barely  mention  Pref- 
byters  as  the  higheft  of  the  two  orders 

he 


P    O   L   Y   G   A   R   P. 


r77 


he  takes  notice  of,  in  the  church  at  Phi- 
lippi  ;  but   he  likewife  fpeaks   of    thefe 
Prefbyters,  as  having  devolved   on   them 
the  "  infpeclion  and  rule"  of  the  church. 
He  therefore  exhorts  the  Philippians  "  to 
be  fubje£t  to  their  Prefbyters  ;"  and  the 
Prefbyters  he  exhorts,  "  to  abftain  from 
refpeit  of  perfons  and  unrighteous  judg- 
ment ;    not   haftily  believing    a   report 
againft  any  man;  not  being  rigid  in  judg- 
ment :"   which  plainly  fuppofes  them,  in 
his  opinion,  to  have  been  vefted  with  the 
power  of  ecclefiaflical   difcipline  :    and 
this,  without  any  perfon  of  a  fuperior  or- 
der at  their  head.     For  it  happens  here, 
as  in  the   epiftle  of  Clement,   there  is  a 
total  fiience  about  theBifhop  of  thischurch. 
Neither  his  name,  or  authority,   are  once 
mentioned  :    nor  is  there,  through  the 
whole  epiftle,  fo  much  as  a  glance,  lead- 
ing our  thoughts  to  any  perfon,  related  to 
this  church,  of  fuperior  authority  to  the 
Prefbyters  of  it. 

The  reply  fometimes  made  to  this  is, 
perhaps  the  Bifhop  was  dead.  But 
what  intimation  is  there,  in  the  epiftle, 
or  elfewhere,  that  he  was  ever  alive  ?   It 

ought 


i78     P    O    L   Y    C    A   R    P. 

ought   fir  ft  to  be  proved,  and  not  taken 
for  granted,  that  he  once  had  exiftence  ; 
before  it  will,   in  reaion,  account  for  the 
iilence  there  is  about  him,  to  fay  he   was 
dead.     Nor  is  it  conceivable,  if   this  had 
really  been  the  cafe,  but  Polycarp  would 
have  offered   the    Philippians  matter  of 
comfort   under  fo   heavy  a  lofs  :  at  leaft, 
he  might  have  wifhed  them   another  Bi- 
fhop, or  recommended  it  to  them,  to  take 
care  to  get  his  place  filled  up. 

It  maybe  worth  while  juft  to  obferve  here, 
how  frequently,  according  to  the  epifco- 
pal  fcheme,  the  primitive  fees  were  vacant 
by    the  death   of  their  Bifhops.      When 
Clement  wrote   to  the   Corinthians,   one 
plea  is,    their  Bifhop  was  dead,    in  order 
to   fatisfy  for  the  iilence  iheie   is   about 
him.      When  we  come  to   Philippi,   the 
fame  anfwer  is  made  ;   the  Bifhop  is  dead. 
And  he  wasdoubtlefs  dead  too  in  the  days  of 
the  Apoftle  Paul ;  for  he  is  as  filent  about 
him  as  Polycarp.     The  words  of  the  ex- 
cellent Mr.  Jamefon  deferve  a  place  here. 
Says  he  "  Philippi  is  no  lefs  fatal  to  the 
41  Epifcopals,thanits  neighbouring  plains 
*  were  to  the  Pompcians  ;  for  they  are 

"  flung 


POLYGARP. 


79 


41  flung  and  confounded  with  the  very 
u  firft  words  of  Paul  to  that  church  : 
"  and  among  their  other  wild  ihifts,  they 
"  anfwer,  that  the  Bifhop  was  often  ab- 
"  fent.  But  there  was  a  good  number  of 
41  years  between  the  writing  of  Paul,  and 
"  that  of  Polycarp,  to  the  Philippians  ; 
"  and  yet,  we  fee  the  Bifhop  is  never 
"  come  home.  Why  tarry  the  wheels 
"  of  his  Lordfhip's  chariot  ?  Hath  he 
"  not  fped  at  court,  that,  after  fo  long 
"  abfence,  there  is  no  news  of  his  re- 
'*  turn  ?  nor  are  we  like  ever  to  hear 
"  any  more  of  him,  for  now  (fay  they) 
"  he  is  dead." 

There  being,  in  the  body  of  this  epif- 
tle,  nothing  but  what  makes  much 
againft  the  caufe  of  modern  Epifcopacy, 
great  ftrefs  is  laid  upon  thefe  words  in 
the  "infcription"to  it,  "  Polycarp  and  the 
Prefbyters  that  are  with  him."  But  not- 
withftanding  all  that  can  be  made  of  thefe 
words,  it  will  be  impoflible  to  find  in 
them  any  marks  of  a  fuperiority  of  or- 
der between  Polycarp,  and  thefe  Prefby- 
ters. 


IX 


i8o     P   O   L   Y    C   A   R   P. 

It  is  true,  Polycarp  is  firft  mentioned, 
and  then  the  other  Prefbyters   of  Smyr- 
na :    but  what  is  this  to  prove  his  epis- 
copal jurifdiftion,  his  being  placed  at  the 
head  of  thefe  Prefbyters,  as  an  officer  of 
diftinft  and  fuperior  rank  ?  Certainly,  no 
fuch  thing  can  be  collefted,  by  any  genu- 
ine deduction  from  this  mode  of  diction.   It 
rather  plainly  imports  a  parity  of  order  be- 
tween the  perfons  directing  the  epiflle  ; 
for  they  are  evidently  affociated  as  a  body, 
without  any  fign  of  difti nation  at  all,  un- 
lefs  a   meer  primacy  may  be  fo  called  : 
whereas,  if  Polycarp  had  been  the  epifco- 
p?l  head  of  the  Prefbyters  of  Smyrna,  the 
infcription  (as  the  learned  Salmatius  ob- 
ferves)  had  more  properly  run,  "  Poly- 
carp the  Bifhop,   and  the   Prefbyters  of 
Smyrna  :"— or  rather,    the    epiflle  had 
been  fent  in  his  own  name,  without  any 
mention  of  the  Prefbyters.     And  there  is 
the  more  reafon   for  this  obfervation,  if 
we  may  fuppofe  the  truth   of  what  this 
fame  author  adds  ;  namely,  "  There  can- 
not be  produced  a  fingle  inftance,  after 
the  diftindtion  between  Bifnops  and  Pref- 
byters took  place,  of  any  epiflle  wrote  by 
any  Bifliop,  who,  in  the  infcription,  made 

himfelf 


P   O   L   Y   G   A   R   P.     181 

himfelf  a  co-partner  with  Prefbyters." 
This  is  evidently  the  cafe  here  ;  the  moll 
natural  meaning  of  the  infcription  being 
obvioufly  this,  "  Polycarp  and  the  reft  of 
the  Preibyters  of  that  college/'  Poly- 
carp plainly  Jhere  joins  himfelf  with  the 
other  Prefbyters  :  they  are  all  reprefented 
as  fo  many  co-partners  in  fending  the 
epiftle  :  nor  is  there  any  diftinction  in- 
timated between  them  -y  only,  Polycarp 
is  particularly  named,  and  firft  mention- 
ed :  which  may  eafily,  and  fatisfaclorily, 
be  accounted  for,  without  going  into  the 
fuppofition  of  his  being  of  an  order 
in  the  church  fuperior  to  that  of  Pref- 
byters. 

One  great  argument  (exa<5tly  fimilar  to 
this,  from  this  infcription)  the  Romanifts 
make  ufe  of  to  prove  "  Peter's  primacy," 
or  fuperiority  over  the  reft  of  the  Apof- 
tles,  is  taken  from  his  name's  being  firft 
placed  in  the  catalogues,  and  narrations, 
we  have  of  him  and  them,  both  in  fcrip- 
ture,  and  antiquity  :  to  which  the  great 
Dr.  Barrow  (allowing  the  fa£l  at  leaft 
to  be  fo  conftant  as  not  to  feem  cafual) 
anfwers,  "  That  pofition  of  names  does 


1 82    POLYCARP, 

V  not  argue  difference  of  degree,  or  fnpe- 
<f  riority  in  power;  any  fmall  advantage 
"  of  age,  ftanding,  merit,  or  wealth,  fcrv- 
**  ing  to  ground  fuch  precedence  ;  as 
•*  common  experience  doth  fhew."  Now 
this  obfervation  will  help  us  to  account 
for  the  particular,  and  firft,  mention 
of  Polycarp,  in  the  infeription  under 
debate. 

He  was  probably  the  firft  in  age  among 
the  Prefbyters  of  Smyrna  ;  being,  at  leaft, 
between  forty  and  fifty  years  old,  when 
he  wrote  this  "epiftle  to  the  Philippians." 
Or  however  this  might  be,  he  was  doubt- 
lefs  the  firft  in  ftanding  among  them,  that 
is,  he  was  before  any  of  them  placed  in 
the  minifterial  office;  was  the  feniorPaf- 
tor  oi  this  church  ;  and  perhaps  the  very 
firft  Paftor,  the  Smyrnseans  ever  had  fix- 
ed among  them  :  to  be  fure,  no  mention 
is  made  in  antiquity  of  any  one  before 
him  ;  but  he  is  always  placed  at  the  head 
of  the  fucceflion.  Now  feniority  of  or- 
dination, efpecially  when  feniority  of  age 
is  added  thereto,  is  always  found  to  be 
an  occafion  of  piccedence  :  and  it  is  fo 
natural  for  it  to  be  fo,  that  it  is  ordi- 
narily 


P  O   L  Y  G  A  R  P.    183 

parity  granted  without  fo  much  as  laying 
in  any  claim  to  it.  And  among  Paftors 
of-  precifely  the  fame  order,  thefe  take 
place  ;  and  their  names,  when  put  into 
writing,  are  always  firft  mentioned  :  and 
fometimes  thefe  only  are  mentioned,  while 
others  of  more  late  ftanding  are  entire- 
ly left  out. 

Besides,  Polycarp  was  one  of  diftin* 
guifhed  perfonal  worth;  firftamong  thefe 
Prefbyters,  as  being,  it  may  be,  of  fuperior 
endowments,  both  intellectual  and  moral: 
and  as  he  was,  by  this  means,  in  a  more 
eminent  manner  qualified  for  the  paftoral 
office,  his  more  eminent  qualifications 
were  a  good  ground  of  precedence.  He 
might,  from  a  juft  fenfe  of  his  own  fu- 
perior merit,  be  difpofed  to  aflame  the 
firft  place  ;  and,  by  this  means,  cuftom 
might  give  him  poffeffion  of  it  :  or,  his 
more  (hining  abilities  might,  being  ob- 
ferved,  procure  from  others  a  voluntary 
giving  him  the  pre-eminence.  "  For  to 
thofe,  who  indifputably  exccll  in  good 
qualities,  honeft  and  meek  perfons  eafily 
will  yield  precedence;  efpecially  on  occa- 
fions  of  public  concernment,  wherein  it  is 
B  b  expedient 


1 84    POLYCARP, 

expedient  thebeft  qualified  perfons  fhould 
be  firft  feen."  And  if,  upon  the  account  of 
his  perforial  worth  in  fpecial,  the  church  of 
Smyrna  had  expreffed  a  diftinguifhing 
regard  for  Polycarp,it  is  nothing  ftrange  : 
nor  if  the  Prefbyters  of  this  church  had 
honored  him  as  their  father  ;  had  allow- 
ed him  a  primacy  of  order  or  dignity  ; 
waiting  for  him  to  lead  in  all  public  mat- 
ters, and  name  himfelf  firft  in  all  epiftles, 
as  the  firft,  or  mod  diftinguifhed  perfon 
of  their  body,  is  it  any  more  than  is  now 
commonLy  praciifed. 

Moreover,  it  may  be  worth  our  no- 
tice, Polycarp  was  one  that  had  acquain- 
tance with  the  Apoftles  of  our  Lord  -,  and, 
what  is  more,  was  placed  in  the  paftoral 
office  at  Smyrna,  by  at  leaft  one  of  them  : 
which  are  advantages  that  greatly  diftin- 
guifhed him.  And  if,  in  virtue  hereof, 
being  diftinguifhly  honored  and  reveren- 
ced, he  had  afligned  him  the  firft  place 
in  the  college  of  Prefbyters,  belonging  to 
this  church,  it  is  no  more  than  might 
naturally  be  expefted.     Upon  the  whole, 


Tuxii 


P   O   L   Y   C   A   R   P.     185 

There  is  no  reafon  to  think,  Poly- 
carp's  being  firft  named,  in  this  infcrip- 
tion,  was  owing  to  any  other  caufe,  t! 
fome  or  all  of  thofe  we  have  mentioned. 
To  be  Aire,  it  could  not  be  becaufe  of  his 
epifcopal  authority  and  pre-eminence,  un- 
lefs  the  church  of  Smyrna  was  far  differ- 
ent in  its  conftitution  from  the  church 
at  Philippi  :  and  this  is  not  in  the  leaft 
probable,  fince  there  are  no  traces4n  this 
epiiile  of  any  fuperiority  of  order  between 
Bifhops  and  Prefbyters. 

There  is  but  one  objection,  what  Ihave 
offered  is  liable  to,  that  I  know  of  :  and 
this  is,  that  Polycarp  is  fpoken  of,  in  an- 
tiquity, as  Bifhop  of  Smyrna;  which  be- 
ing confidered  at  the  fame  time  that  we 
read  this  infeription,  it  will  naturally  lead 
us  to  conftrue  his  particularly  naming 
himfelf ;  and  this,  before  the  Prefbyters, 
as  fignifying  his  being  of  an  order  fupe- 
rior  to  them. 

But  as  the  whole  weight  of  this  ob- 
jeftion  (if  there  be  any  at  all  in  it)  de- 
pends intirely  upon  the  true  import  of 
the  word  Bifhop,  in  the  age  of  Polycarp, 

there 


j  86    P   O  L   Y   C   A   R   P. 

there  is  no  reafon  to  be  moved  by  it  : 
fince  we  fhall  fee  in  thefe  papers  (which 
are  through  the  whole  of  them  an  anf- 
wcr  to  it )  full  evidence,  that  this  word, 
in  this  age,  was  certainly  fynonimous 
with  the  word  Prefbyter,  and  ufed  to 
fignify  nothing  more  than  precifely  the 
fame  order  of  church  officers. 


IGNATIUS. 


IGNATIUS, 


His   charadler,    writings,    and   tefiimonies 
from  them,  with  obfervations  and  remarks* 


THE  name,  epithet,  or  whatever  elfe 
any  may  pleafe  to  call  it,  'given 
this  Father,  in  all  his  epiftles,  is  Theo- 
phoros  ;  which,  as  the  learned  fay,  may 
be  written  differently  accented  :  either 
Theophoros,  meaning,  a  u  divine  per- 
fon,"  one  who  "  carried  God  in  his 
breaft  $"  or  Theophoros  fignifying a  per- 
fon  '•'  carried  by  God."  The  generality 
of  thofe,  who  entertain  a  favorable  opi- 
nion of  Ignatius's  "  epiftles,"  think  he 
was  ordinarily  fpoken  of,  in  the  age  in 
which  he  lived,  in  the  ftile  of  Theopho- 
ros j 


188     IGNATIUS. 

kos  -,  and  that  this  name  was  applied  to 
him,  in  the  firft  of  the  above  fenfes,  on 
account  of  his  great  piety,  his  "  foul's 
being  full  of  God."  But  both  thefe  points 
may,  with  good  reafon,  be  called  in  ques- 
tion. It  is  undoubted  fact,  that  he  is 
never  mentioned  by  any  of  the  truly  pri- 
mitive Fathers  in  the  ftile  of  Theo- 
phoros.  And  what  may  be  worth  no- 
tice, thofe,  among  the  later  ones,  who 
give  him  this  name,  do,  at  the  fame  time, 
lpeak  of  him  as  the  "  child"  our  Savi- 
or "  took  up  into  his  arms,"  and  «  fat 
before  his  difciples"  as  a  pattern  of  hu- 
mility. And  this  is  the  fpecial  reafon 
they  aflign  of  the  application  of  this 
name.  But,  as  the  greateft  admirers  of 
Ignatius  efteem  this  a  fabulous  ftory, 
falling  in  with  Chryfoftom,  who  fays  of 
this  Father,  that  he  never  faw  our  Lord, 
nor  enjoyed  any  converfe  with  him,"  the 
name  Theophoros,  founded  on  it, 
ought  not  tobeafcribed  to  him.  And, 
probably,  it  was  not  originally  inferted 
in  the  "  infcriptions"  to  his  u  epiftles  f 
unlefs  we  fhould  fuppofe  them  fpurioqs, 
and  not  wrote  until  the  fable  itfelf,  that 
is  the  foundation  of  this  name,  in  this 
fenfe,  began  to  obtain  a  currency* 

It 


IGNATIUS. 

It  is  faid,  in  fupport  of  the  other  rea- 
fon  of  the  application  of  this  name,  that 
it  feems  to  have  been  the  very  one,  Igna- 
tius himfelf  is  reprefented  to  have  given, 
in  the  extant  account  we  have  of  his 
"  martyrdom."  For  being  afked,  "  Who 
was  Theophoros  ?"  His  reply  was, 
u  He  who  has  Chrift  in  his  bread."  From 
whence  it  is  fuppofed,  that  he  was  com- 
monly known  by  this  name,  and  for  this 
reafon.  But,  as  "  the  a£ls  of  the  mar- 
tyrdom of  Ignatius"  are  no  where  quo- 
ted, mentioned,  or  fo  much  as  referred  to, 
in  any  manner  whatever,  by  any  Father, 
until  we  have  got  into  thofe  times  that 
were  greatly  remote  from  his  day,  they 
muft  be  acknowledged  to  be,  at  leaft,  of 
dubious  authority,  and  not  to  be  depend- 
ed on   in  point  of  argument. But  it 

would   take  up  too  much  room,  to  lit- 
tle purpofe,  to  enlarge  here, 

Whether  Ignatius  was  called  Theo- 
phoros or  not  ;  or  whatever  was  the  rea- 
fon of  giving  him  this  name,  we  are  whol- 
ly at  a  lofs  to  know,  where  he  was 
born  ;  how  educated  j  when,  and  by 
what  means,  converted  to  the  Chrifti- 
an  faith,     And,  in  truth,  the  ancient 

records 


1 9o     IGNATIUS. 

records  are  furprizingly  filent  about 
him  ;  feldom  mentioning  Co  much  as  his 
name,  until  we  come  into  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. He  is  highly  celebrated  by  mo- 
dern writers;  and  were  we  to  judge,  from 
the  honorary  manner,  in  which  they  fpeak 
of  him,  we  muft  fuppofe,  that  he  was  not 
only  the  mofl  pious  and  holy  man,  but 
the  moft  faithful,  and  fignally  accom- 
plifhed  gofpel-minifter,  that  ever  lived. 
This,  poffibly,  may  be  his  juft  charaffer  -, 
but  none  can  fay  that  it  is  upon  any  other 
foot,  than  that  of  meer  conjecture. 

He  is  commonly  fpoken  of  as  Bifhop 
of  Antioch  ;  but  it  ought  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  Origin,  a  writer  in  the  third 
century,  is  the  firfl  Father  that  mentions 
him  under  this  character.  He  is  follow- 
ed by  the  fucceeding  Fathers,  in  the  fe- 
veral  ages  in  which  they  refpe&ively  flou- 
rifhed.  And  when  they  fpeak  of  him  in 
the  ftile  of  Bifhop,  they  doubtlefs  took 
into  the  meaning  of  the  word,  the  whole 
that  was  underftood  by  it  in  their  clay. 
But  this  will,  by  no  means,  let  us  into 
the  true  idea  of  this  term,  as  ufed  in  the 
days  of  Ignatius.  It  is  readily  conced- 
ed, he  was  Bifhop  of  Antioch  ;  but  utter- 


IGNATIUS. 


191 


]y  denied,  that  he  was  Bifhop  of  this 
church  in  the  fenfe,  in  which  this  word 
was  ufed,  either  in  the  age  ofOrigen,  or 
in  thofe  ages  that  followed  after.  He 
might  as  properly  be  called  the  Paftor, 
thefiift,  or  moft  eminent  Prefbyter,  or 
Elder,  of  that  church,  as  the  Biihop  of 
it  ;  for  nothing  more  was  meant  by  the 
word  Biihop,  in  the  age  in  which  Igna- 
tius flourifhed. 

It  may  properly  be  obferved  here,  the 
different  account  the  Fathers  give  of  the 
order,  or  place,  of  his  fucceffion  in  the 
church  of  Antioch,  makes  a  difficulty  not 
unlike  that  of  Clement's  fucceffion  in  the 
church  of  Rome.  The  difficulty  is,  where 
to  place  Ignatius  in  the  line  of  fucceffion  ^ 
fome  of  the  Fathers  putting  Euodius  be- 
fore him,and  others  placing  Ignatius  next 
after  fome  Apoftle.  The  Epifcopalians 
are  much  puzzled  to  folve  this  matter, 
and  go  into  very  different  fchemes,  which 
it  is  not  my  bufinefs,  at  prefent,  to  ex-* 
amine. 

The  precife  time  of  his  taking  upori 

him  the  charge  of  the  Antiochian  church 

cannot  be  afcertained  ;  nor  is  it  particu- 

C  c  larljr 


I  92 


IGNATIUS. 


larly  known,  how  he  executed  this  trufl  : 
though  it  may,  in  general,  be  charitably 
thought,  that  lie  approved  himfelf  a  faith- 
ful  Minifter  of  Chrift  ;    as  he   couragi- 
oufly  chofe  to  die  rather  than  difown  his 
Ma(ter  and  Lord.     There  is  no  room  to 
doubt  his  having  laid   down  his  life   for 
the  fake  of  the  religion  of  Jefus  ;  but  as 
to  the  manner  and  circumftances  of  his 
death,  as  related  in  the  "  acls  of  his  mar- 
tyrdom,"  it    may    be   juftly   queftioned, 
whether  full  credit  is  due  to  them.     In 
fpecial,   it   is  difficult  to  think   that   he 
ihould  be   fent  from   Antioch   to  fuffer 
at  Rome.      The  moft  able  writers   are  at 
a  lofs  to  account  for  this  •,  and  fome  look 
upon  it  as  plainly  an   incredible  ftory. 
The  great  Jamefon   has  this   opinion  of 
it.     Says  he,  "  Why  fhould   Trajan   be 
€t  at  the  pains  to  fend  him  guarded  thi- 
"  ther  ?    Certainly  not  for  an  entertain- 
"  ment  to  the   people,  as  the  pretended 
*c  "a6bof  Ignatius"affirm.  They  had  ftore 
**  of  Chriftians  of  all  forts  at  Rome,  with 
"  the  fpe&acle  of  whofe  fufFerings  they 
"  might  daily  be   cloyed.      Neither,  as 
P  fome  anfwer,  becaufe  he  was  a  famous 
"  Chriftian   Biihop,  at  whofe  death  the 
V  Roman  Chriftians  might  be  terrified  ; 

*  feeing 


IGNATIUS 


93 


*f  feeing  the  Emperor  might  conclude, 
"  from  Ignatius's  great  refolution  and 
"  boldnefs,  which  himfelf  had  perceived, 
**  that  he  would  much  animate  them. 
*f  But  the  perpetual  pra6tice  of  thefe 
"  times  frees  us  from  further  debate 
"  herein.  I  can  never  find,  that  the  Ro- 
"  mans  brought  Chriltians  from  Afia,  or 
"  fuch  remote  places,  to  be  executed  at 
"  Rome;  but  to  the  neareft  feats  of  juf- 
"  tice  ,•  as  is  clear  in  Polycarp,  and  other 
"  mofl:  famous  Bifhops,  or  Paftors."  He 
goes  on,  quoting  a  paffage  from  Dr.  Stil- 
lingfleet,  in  thefe  words,  "  And  truly  the 
"  ftory  of  Ignatius,  as  much  as  it  is  de- 
"  fended  with  his  epiftles,  doth  not  feem 
*'  to  be  any  of  the  moft  probable.  For 
"  wherefore  fhould  Ignatiu  s,  of  all  others, 
*'  be  brought  toRometofufFer?  when  the 
"  Pro-Confuls,  and  the  Prasfides  Provin- 
"  ciarum,  did  every  where,  in  the  time 
"  of  perfecution,  execute  their  power 
ie  in  punifliing  of  Chriftians  at  their  own 
"  tribunals,  without  fending  them  fo 
"  long  a  journey  to  Rome  to  be  martyr- 
"  ed  there."— But  however  it  might  be 
as  to  this,  and  other  circumftances,  the 
faft  itfelf,  that  he  died  a  martyr,  is  not 
difputed. 

The 


i94     IGNATIUS. 

The  year  of  his  martyrdom  is  variouf- 
]y  fixed.  Some  place  it  in  the  year  107  ; 
others  in  110;  and  others  ftill  in  116. 
It  would  take  up  too  much  room,  and  to 
no  great  purpofe,  to  examine  the  reafons 
which  have  induced  critical  writers  thus 
to  differ  in  fetlingthe  period  of  Ignatius's 
death;  upon  which  account  I  ihall  fay 
nothing  more  about  it. 

His  Writings. 

CONCERNING  thefe,  it  will  be  pro- 
per I  fliould  be  more  particular,  than 
would  have  been  neceiTary,  had  they  not 
been  the  occafion  of  fe  much  diipute  in 
the  learned  world. 

No  lefs  than  fifteen  "  Epiftles"  go  un- 
der the  name  of  Ignatius  ;  and  they  have 
commonly  been  divided  into  three  clafles. 
The  firft  contains  the  three  epiftles  that 
are  extant  only  in  latin,  and  wrote,  one 
of  them  to  the  "  Virgin  Mary,"  the  other 
two  to  "  St.  John."  The  fecond  compre- 
hends the  five  Greek  epiftles,  which 
are  not  mentioned  either  by  Eufebius,  cr 
Jerom.  The  firft,  to  "  Mary  Caffaboli- 
ta  ;"   the  fecond,   to    the  inhabitants   of 

Tarfus  £ 


IGNATIUS.     195 

Tarfus ;"  the  third  "to  the  Antiochians  5" 
the  fourth,  "  to  Hero/'  Deacon  of  the 
church  at  Antioch  i"  the  fifth,  "  to  the 
Philippians."  A  few  Roman-catholic 
writers  give  credit  to  thefe  epiftles,  as 
wrote  by  Ignatius  ;  but  they  are  herein 
univerfally  oppofed  by  Epifcopalian  pro- 
teftants,  as  well  as  others,  who  look  up- 
on them  as  evidently  fuppofititious.  The 
third  clafs  comprises  the  feven  epiftles 
fuppofed  to  be  taken  notice  of  by  Eufe- 
bius;  which  are  the  following  ones.  The 
firft,  "  to  the  Ephefians  y  the  fecond, 
"  to  the  Magnefians 1  the  third,  "  to 
the  Trallians  ;"  the  fourth,  "  to  the  Ro- 
mans ;"  the  fifth,  "  to  the  Philadel- 
phians  ;"  the  fixth,  "  to  the  Smyrnse- 
ans  ;"  the  feventh  "  to  Polycarp."  N.  B. 
Arch-Bifhop  Ufher,  *  and  fome  others 

after 

*  This  noted  Antiquary  was  clearly  and  fully  of  the  opini- 
on, that  the  "  epiftle  to  Polycarp,"  which  is  reckoned 
among,  and  makes  up,  the  feven  "  epiftles  of  Ignatius,'* 
is  falfely  attributed  to  him  ;  as  he  fuppofes,  this  ve- 
nerable 'Father  wrote  no  peculiar  epiftle  to  Polycarp, 
but  that  his  "  epiftle  to  the  church  of  Smyrna"  was 
wrote,  both  to  them  and  their  Bifliop,  and  directed  joint- 
ly to  them  both.  And  he  was  in  no  doubt,  but  that  this 
was  the  fentiment  of  Jerom  alfo.  And  others  think  fo 
too  ;  and  the  rather,  becaufe  Honorius  Auguftodunenfis, 
in  his  book  "  de  luminaribus  ecclefi*/'  which  is  an  epi- 
tome 


196     IGNATIUS. 

after  him,  rejeft  this  laft  ;  fuppofing  the 
fix  former  to  be  the  only  truly  genuine 
ones. 

These  fe'ven  epiftles,  it  may  be  obferv- 
ed,  are  again  confidered  in  two  views. 
The  firft  exhibits  them  in  the  editions 
that  were  publifhed  before  the  days  of 
the  celebrated  Ufher  and  Voflius  ;  and 
thus  confidered,  they  are  ftiled  the 
"  larger  epiftles,"  and  are  now  alfrioft 
univerfally  given  up  as  incapable  of 
a  defence,  on  account  of  the  corrup- 
tions that  have  fome  how  or  other  un- 
happily got  mixed  with  them  :  though 
it  ought  always  to  be  kept  in  remem- 
brance, that  the  former  advocates  for 
Prelacy,  who  had  no  other  editions  but 
thefe,  ftrenuoufly  pleaded  for  them  as  the 
genuine  valuable  remains  of  the  truly 
primitive  Ignatius,  and  appealed  to  them 
as  fuch,  in  the  caufe  of  Epifcopacy,  per- 
haps with  as  much  frequency,  and  zeal, 
as  any  of  their  Epifcopal  brethren  have 
done  fince. 

The 

tome  of  Jerom,  Bennadius,  Ifadore  Hifpalenfc,  Be- 
da,  and  others,  enumerating  the  "  epiftles  of  Ignatius/' 
altogether  omits  that  to  "  Polycarp."  It  ought  there- 
fore to  be,  and,  by  the  great  Uilier,  is  ranked  amon^  thof<3 
f<  epiftles/'  which,  to  fay  the  leaft,  are  dubious. 


IGNATIUS. 


97 


The  other  view  we  have  of  thefe  epif- 
ties  is,  as  they  are  fet  forth   by  Arch-Bi- 
fhop  Ufher,  from  two  latin  copies  he  met 
with  in  England,  one  in   the  library  of 
Caius    college,  the  other  in  the  library 
of  Bifliop  Montague  ;  and  by  the  learned 
Voffius,  from  a  Greek  manufcript  copy 
he  found  in  the  Florentine  library.    Con- 
fidered  in  this  view,   they  are  called  the 
"  fhorter  epiftles,"   and   reprefented    as 
both   genuine  and  uncorrupted.      They 
are   accordingly  the  only  ones   now  re- 
paired to,  in  proof  of  the  fuperiority   of 
Bifhops  to  Prefbyters  in  order  and  pow- 
er.—May  it  not  be  pertinently  queried 
here.  Do  not  Epifcopalians  evidently  con- 
demn  themfelves,  while    they    zealoufly 
adhere  to  thefe,  and  reject  the  former  edi- 
tions of  the  "  Ignatian  epiftles  f"  They 
would  not  be  wrought  upon,  by  any  me- 
thods of  reafoning,  to  give  up  "  epiftles"* 
they  now  acknowledge  to  be  bafely  in- 
terlarded with  corruption,    until  they  had 
got  them,  from  other  manufcripts,  in  a 
ftate  they   could  better  defend.     Does  it 
not  look,  as  though  they  imagined   their 
caufe  flood  in  abfolute  need  of  Ignatius, 
and  were  willing  to  part  with  him  in  the 
former  editions,  only  becaufe  they  have 

others 


198     IGNATIUS. 

others  to  fubftitute  in  their  room,  that 
have  not  fo  glaring  an  appearance  of  a 
bafe  mixture.  ?  One  can  fcarce  help 
thinking,  if  other  editions  fhould  be  let 
forth,  from  ftill  other  manufcripts,  more 
defenfible  than  thefe  they  now  have,  they 
would  as  readily  quit  thefe,  as  they  have 
done  the  former  ones. 

But  however  pure  and  uncorrupt  thefe 
"  fhorter  epiilles,"  publifhed  from  the 
more  lately  difcovered  manufcripts,  are 
fuppofed  to  be,  there  are  fome,  and  of  the 
firft  character  too  for  learning,  who  have 
openly  declared  it  to  be  their  opinion, 
that  they  are  spurious  ;  and  a  ftill  grea- 
ter number  are  perfuaded  they  have  been 
corrupted,  if  they  are  not  fpurious,  to  a 
degree  that  unfits  them  to  be  appealed 
to,  as  exhibiting  the  real  ienfe  of  the 
true  Ignatius. 


THuftrangefilence  of  primitive  antiqui- 
ty concerning  "epiftles, "  under  the  name 
of  Ignatius,  is  mentioned  by  fome,  in- 
timately acquainted  with  the  Fathers,  as 
a  fufficient  reafon  to  fuipe£t  that  he  ne- 
ver wrote  any.  There  is  no  difpute 
about  the  fadt  itfelf,  namely,  that  none 

of 


IGNATIUS.     199 

of  the  Fathers,  whofe  works  are  Hill  re- 
maining, in  whole,  or  in  part,   give  no- 
tice of"epiftles"  wrote  by  Ignatius,  either 
a  lefs  or  greater  number,   until  we  come 
into  the  fourth  century,  three  only  ex- 
cepted ;  of   whom  we  (hall  particularly 
fpeak,  in  fome  proper  place,  afterwards. 
But  then  the  plea  is,  this  is  a  negative  ar- 
gument, and  proves   nothing.     It  is  ac- 
knowledged, negative  evidence^  confidered 
in  itfelf  nakedly,  is  of  no  great  weight. 
But  ftill,  this  kind  of  evidence  may  be  fo 
attended  with  circumftances  as  to  yield 
conviction, not  much  fhort  of  that  which 
is  grounded  on  pofitive  proof.      Should 
a  pretended  writing  be  fo  circurnftanced, 
in  regard  of  its  fuppofed  author,  fubject- 
matter,  occafion,and  manner  of  penning, 
as  that  there  would  be  as   much  reafon 
to  expect,  it  fhould  be  taken  notice  of  by 
thole,  who  muft  be  thought  to  have  been 
acquainted  with  it,  as  other  writings  of 
the  fame  age  ;    and  they  are  commemo- 
rated,   while  this   is   filently  palled  ovqr 
with  neglect,  not  by  here  and  there  a  Fa- 
ther, but  the  whole  body  of  writers  for 
two  hundred  years  :— thefe  are  circum- 
ftances of  no  fmall  importance,  and  add 
ftrength  to  a  /;^^u^teftfrnony,  rendering 
D  d  it 


2co     I    G   N    A   T   I   U   S. 

it  almoft  equal  in  force  to  that  which 
is  pofitive.  Now,  this  is  the  cafe  re- 
fpecling  thefe  "  Ignatian  epiflles."  For 
it  ought  to  be  remembeied,,  and  confi- 
dered, 

Ignatius  lived  in  the  firft  age  of 
Chriftianity,  was  perfonally  known  to,  at 
lead,  fome  of  the  Apofties,  and  many  of 
fnofe  who  had  been  familiarly  converfant 
with  them.  And  he  was  conftituted, 
if  we  may  believe  the  Epifcopalians,  by 
one  of  the  Apoftles,  at  leaft,  Bifhop  of 
the  church  of  Antioch  -,  a  noted  city  in 
itfelf,  and  remarkable  on  account  of  its 
being  the  place,  where  believers  were  firft 
diftinguifhed  by  th?  name  of  Christi- 
ans. Thefe  are  circumftances,  leaving 
it  indisputable,  that  Ignatius  was  no  ob- 
fcure  perfon,  but  as  likely  to  be  known 
as  any  in  that  day.  Befides  all  this,  he 
was  a  glorious  martyr  for  the  religion  of 
Jefus  ;  and,  if  he  really  wrote  thefe  epif- 
tles,  the  circumftances  of  his  martyr- 
dom were  truly  extraordinary.  For  he 
was  condemned  at  Antioch,  to  die  at 
Rome.  And,  in  order  to  the  execution 
of  thisfentence,  was  conveyed,  by  a  band 
of  foldiers/.as  a  prifoner  of  death  for  the 

fake 


IGNATIUS, 


01 


fake  of  Chrift,  through  all  the  places,  in 
which  his  name  was  named,  that  lay 
in  the  way  between  the  greatly  di- 
ftant  cities  from  each  other,  Antioch 
and  Rome.  This  is  a  circumftance  that 
would  naturally  fpread  his  fame,  and 
occafion  his  being  held  in  veneration  by 
all  the  Chriftian  churches,  as  he  paffed 
along.  Had  he  been  before  a  perfon  of 
no  figure,  this  alone  would  have  given 
him  an  exalted  reputation  :  nor  is  itfup- 
pofeable,  that  any  of  the  Fathers,  of  the 
fame  age,  fhould  be  more  extenfively 
known,  or  more  frequently  fpoken  of 
with  honor.  Thefe  are  the  circumftan- 
ces  under  which  we  are  to  conceive  of  the 
author  of  thefe  "  epiftles." 

And  as  extraordinary  ones  attend  the 
"  epiftles"  themfelves  ;  for  they  were 
wrote  (if  wrote  by  him)  inthe  character 
of  one  that  was  a  prifoner,  in  bonds,  for 
the  name  of  Chrift,  and  actually  on  his 
journey  to  be  devoured  by  wild  beafts  : 
nor  were  they  wrote  to  private  friends, 
upon  meer  private  concerns ;  but  to  no 
lefs  than  fix  as  famous  churches  as  were 
then  in  the  world  ;  and,  if  we  may  be- 
Here  the  Epifcopalians,  upon  matters  of 

the 


btii     IGNATIUS. 

the  moft  eilential    importance,      Thcfe, 
furely,    are  confutations    that   will  not 
fuffer  us  to  think,  that  thefe  "  epiftles" 
were  unknown,  or  not  efteerried  worthy 
of    particular    notice.       Epiftles    wrote, 
and  fent,  to  a  number  of  fuch  noted  chur- 
ches, by  fo  good  and  great  a  Bifhop,  up- 
on the  moft  weighty   points,  at  fo  folemn 
a  time  as  that  of  his  dying  for  the  cauic 
of  Chrift,muft  have  occafioned  much  talk 
among  Chriftians.    They  would  have  put 
a  diftinguifhing  value  upon  fuch  epiftles  j 
yea,  they  would  have  efteemed  them  the 
moft  celebrated  monuments  of  all  unin- 
spired  antiquity.       How    unaccountable 
then  is  it,  that  fo  little  notice  fhould   be 
taken   of  them,  for  the  full  fpace  of  two 
hundred  years  after  the  fuppoied  date  of 
their  compolure  !    And  what   makes  the 
matter  ftill  more  ftrange  is,  that  nothing 
more  frequently  occurs,  than  the  menti- 
on of  other  writings  of  the  fame  age  with 
theie.     There  is  fcarce  an  author,  about 
the  time  in  which  Ignatius  fiourifhed,but 
his    works    are  particularly    named,    or 
quoted.     And  why  'fhould  Ignatius,  the 
moft  celebrated  of  them  all,   be  fhamc- 
fully  treated   with  filence  and   neglect    ? 
And  this  is  the  more  to  be  wondered  at, 

as 


IGNATIUS.     203 

as  his  writings  were,  in  fome  cafes, 
the  moft  pertinent  that  could  have  been 
referred  to  ;  far  more  fo  than  other  wri- 
tings that  are  particularly  mentioned,  and 
remembered  with  honor. 

But  the  force  of  this  negative  argu- 
ment will  appear  in  a  yet  ftronger  point 
of  light,  if,  by  way  of  fpecimen,  we  par- 
ticularly confider  one  or  two  of  the  an- 
cient writers,  who  take  no  notice  of 
thefe  "  epiftles." 

The  firft  fhall  be  Irenaeus.  We  have 
extant  of  his  a  large  volume,  entitled, 
"  the  confutation  of  that  which  is  falfc- 
ly  called  knowledge  f*  the  main  defign 
of  which  is,  to  explain  and  refute  the 
erronious  notions  of  Simon,  Menander, 
Valentinus,  Marcion,  Cerinthus,  Cer- 
don,"  and  as  many  other  heretics  as  had 
appeared  in  his  day,  and  for  an  hundred 
years  before.  In  fuch  a  work  as  this,  of 
fo  great  length,  and  fuch  variety  of  mat- 
ter and  argument,  it  might  well  be  ex- 
pected, fome  mention  would  have  been 
made  of  fo  celebrated  a  writer,  and  mar- 
tyr, as  Ignatius,  who  both  wrote  and  died 
in   this  very  age   :    efpecially,    if  it  be 

confidered. 


2o4     IGNATIUS. 

confidered,'thathis"epiftles"  are  peculiarly 
pertinent  to  the  great  defign  of  Irenaeus's 
argument,  morefo  by  far  than  any  other 
ancient  writing,  we  know  any   thing  of, 
then  extant  in   the   world.     For   fome 
(perhaps  the  moft)  of  thofe  very  errors  he 
oppofes,  were  both  noted  and  rejected  by 
Ignatius.     I  need  not  be  at  the  pains  to 
produce  inftances  of  this  for  the  fake  of 
thofe,  who  are  acquainted  with  thefe  wri- 
tings ;  and  for  others,  if  they  will  only 
compare  the   "   Ignatian   epiftles",  with 
the  firft   of  "  Irenaeus's  five  books",  they 
may,  with  their  own  eyes,  fee  a  number 
of  them.     What  therefore  more  natural 
than  to  look  for  references  to  "thefe  epif- 
tles",   in  the   works  of  Ircnaeus  ?    And 
how  can  it  be  accounted  for,    that   he 
fhould  take  no  notice  of  them,  but  that 
he  knew  of  no  fuch  epiftles  ?  Had  he  con- 
fined himfelf  to   reafon,  or  fcripture,  in 
confutation  of  thefe  heretics,  having  no 
recourfe  to  former  writers,  it   would  be 
ibme   apology  for  his  filence  :   but,   far 
from  this,  one  of  his  chief  arguments  is 
taken  from  "  the  fucceffion  of  doflrine 
in    the  Chriftian  church  ;"  in    ord^r  to 
confirm  which,  he  recurs  to  the  writ- 
ings, as  well  as  sayings,  of  thofe  who 

wer§ 


IGNATIUS.     205 

were  older  than  the  heretics  he  was  re- 
futing. He  makes  a  very  particular  and 
honorable  mention  of  Clement,  aiyi  his 
"epiftle  to  the  Corinthians, "and  oppofes 
even  the  whole  of  it  againft  the  herefies 
he  had  under  confideration.  *  And  yet, 
not  a  word  is  faid,  either  here,  or  elfe- 
where,  in  his  whole  book,  in  commemo- 
ration of  "  Ignatius's  epiftles  £*  nor  is 
there  one  word  quoted  from  him  to  the 
purpofe  of  the  grand  argument  he  has  in 
profecution. 

The  anfwer  to  this  is,  That,  in  the 
place  where  Irenseus  mentions  ■ "  Cle- 
ment," he  had,  to  prevent  being  tedious, 
expreffly limited  himfelf  to  "  the  fucceffion 
of  doftrine  in  the  church  at  Rome,"of  which 
Clement  had  been  Bifliop  ;  and  as,  in  the 
name  of  that  church,  he  had  wrote  an 
"  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians,"  wherein 
the  dodlrine  of  that  church,  and  its  op- 
pofition  to  the  dofrrine  of  thefe  heretics, 
might  be  eafily  difcerned,  there  was  good 
reafon,  why  he  fhould  diftinguifh  Cle- 
ment ;  a  pertinency  in  appealing  to  hinr, 
while  there  would  have  been  none  in 

appealing 

*  Lib.    iii.  Cap.  iii. 


206     IGNATIUS. 

appealing  to  Ignatius.  But,  it  is  obferva- 
ble,  in  this  very  place,  where  he  had  con- 
fined his  argument  to  the  church  of  Rome, 
he  takes  occafion  to  commemorate  "  Po- 
Jycarp's  epiftle  tothePhilippians."  *  And 
why  might  he  not,  with  as  much  propri- 
ety, have  taken  fome  notice  of  the  "  epif- 
ties  of  Ignatius  i"  To  this  alfo  it  is  re- 
plied, Irenseus  introduces  the  mention  he 
makes  of  Polycarp,  by  faying,  he  had 
been  at  Rome,  where  he  oppofed  thefe 
heretics,  and  recovered  many  from  the 
errors  wherewith  they  had  been  infected  : 
upon  which  account  it  was  to  his  purpofe 
to  name  Polycarp,  while  there  was  norea- 
fon,  at  this  time,  to  mention  Ignatius. 
But,  it  deferves  confideration,  over  and 
above  mentioning  Poiycarp's  being  at 
Rome,  and  confuting  the  Heretics  there, 
which  was  the  only  point  dire&Iy  to  his 
argument,  he  takes  occafion  to  celebrate 
his  €\  epiftle  to  the  Philippians".  There 
is  little,  or  nothing,  in  this  epiftle  to  the 
defign,  he  was  upon,  and  accordingly  he 
makes  no  ufe  of  it,  or  any  fentence  in 
it,  to  oppofe  the  heretics  :  yet,  this 
primitive  Father  having  an  epiftle  extant, 

he 


Lib. 


;p,  m< 


IGNATIUS, 


207 


he  could  not  forbear  making  a  record 
of  it.  And  it  might  have  been  as  pro- 
per, and  pertinent,  even  in  this  very  place, 
to  have  done  the  like  by  the  "  epiftles  of 
Ignatius."  For  it  is  particularly  worthy 
of  notice,  Ignatius  had  been  at  Rome  as 
well  as  Polycarp;  and,  what  is  more, 
died  there  a  glorious  martyr  in  the  caufe 
of  Chrift  :  Nor  fhould  it  be  forgot,  that 
"  thefe  epiftles,"  as  Epifcopalians  tell 
us,  were  collected  by  Polycarp,  at  leaft, 
fome  of  them,  and  annexed  by  him  to  his 
"own  epiftle"as  part  of  one  and  the  fame 
volume.  Irenaeus,  therefore,  having  men- 
tioned "Polycarp's  epiftle",  would,  it  may 
reafonablyand  naturally  be  fupp.ofed,have 
mentioned  the  others  alfo  under  the  fame 
cover,  if  he  had  known  of  them;  and  the 
rather,  becaufe  they  were  the  work  of  fa 
eminent  a  primitive  Father,  and  of  all 
the  writings,  then  extant,  the  beft  adapted 
to  confound  the  heretics  he  was  arguing 
againft. 

But  fhould  it  be  allowed,  that,  in  this 
particular  place,  while  his  argument  was 
under  a  fpecial  limitation,  it  was  more 
proper  to  take  notice  of  the  "  epiftles  of 
Clement  andPoIycarp'^than of  "Ignatius" * 
E  e  yea^ 


2c8     I   G   N    A   T   I   U   S, 

yea,  that  there  was  good  reafon  for  men- 
tioning the  former,   and  none  at  all  for 
the  latter  ;  yet,   what  is  this  to  account 
for  the  iilence  there  every  where  el-fe  ap- 
pears concerning  theie  epiftles  ?  Becaufe 
it  was  more  proper  in  one  place  to  men- 
tion Clement  and  Polycarp,    than   Igna- 
tius, will  it   therefore  follow    there    was 
a   propriety   in  making  no    mention    of 
him  at  all  I    If  this  was  a  proper  place 
to  fpeak  of  Clement,  and  Polycarp, might 
he  not,  in  fome  other  place,  have  done 
the  like  honor  to  Ignatius  ?    And  his  fi- 
lence  with  refpett  to  this  mod  noted  Fa- 
ther, is  the  more  ftrange,  as  he  has  found 
feme    fuitable   place   to   remember,    not 
only   Clement,   and  Polycarp,  but  Her- 
nias,   Ignatius's  contemporary,  and  Pa- 
pias,  and  Juftin,  not  a  great  way  pofterior 
to  him.    Surely,  no  one,  who  efteems "Ig- 
natius's epiftles*'  to  be  genuine,  will  fay, 
that  Irenaeus    had  more  reafon,  or  could, 
with  greater  propriety,  record   the    wri- 
tings of  thefe  Fathers,  than  thofe  of  the 
more   famed   and    memorable   Ignatius. 
Befides  all  which, it  may  be  worth  minding, 
that  nothing  ismore  common  withlrenaeus, 
than  to  have  recourfe  to  the  fayings,  both 
oral    and   written,  of  thofe   Elders 

who 


IGNATIUS,     sop, 

who  preceeded  him.  .  "  As  a  certain  El- 
tder  fays,"  u  as  was  faid  by  the  Prefby- 
ters,"  "  as  I  heard  from  fuch  a  Senior," 
•*  as  was  delivered  by  thofe  who  were 
difciples  of  the  Apoftles,"  are  phrafes 
very  familiar  with  him.  He  often,Vin 
this  manner,  introduces  the  words  of  the 
ancients.  And  yet,  in  fo  many  referen- 
ces, he  never  makes  ufe  of  fo  much  as  a 
fingle  fentence  from  Ignatius,  to  his 
grand  purpofe,  that  of  refuting  the  he- 
retics ;  though,  in  moft  of  his  epiftles, 
there  was  that  which  was  well  adapted 
to  fuch  a  defigri.  It  certainly  looks,  as 
if  he  knew  nothing  of  "  thefe  epiftles" :  if 
he  had,  he  muft  needs  have  dropped,  at 
leaft,  fome  hint  about  them,  fomewhere 
or  other,  in  fo  large  a  work. 

I  shall  next  mention  Clement  of 
Alexandria  ;  a  perfon  of  vaft  learning, 
fecond  to  none  in  the  age  in  which  he 
lived,  for  his  acquainta^e  with  all  forts 
of  writers.  Thofe  works  of  his  that  are 
ftill  in  being  are crouded  with  an  immenfe 
variety  of  quotations  from  philofophers, 
poets,  hiftorians,  and  all  kinds  of  wri- 
ters, whether  Pagan  or  Chriftian.  He 
particularly   mentions   the  "    epiftle  of 

Barnabas," 


2IO 


IGNATIUS. 


Barnabas,"  the  "  cpiftle  of  Clement  of 
Rome,"  the  "  paflor  of  Hermas,"  all 
writers  in  the  age  in  which  Ignatius  liv- 
ed. And  if  the  "  Ignatian  epiftles"  had 
been  extant  in  his  day,  one  of  his  pro- 
digious learning  muft  have  had  know- 
ledge of  it  ;  and  if  he  had,  it  is  fcarce 
credible  he  fhould  have  paffed  them  over 
in  filence.  He  often  takes  occafton  to 
fpeak  of  the  heretics  that  corrupt^  the 
Chriftian  faith  -,  and  there  being  fo  much 
in  Ignatius  upon  this  head,  it  is  really 
ftrange,  he  fhould  never  once  comme- 
morate fo  famous  a  writer,  and  martyr. 
It  is  quite  natural  to  think,  he  had  ne- 
ver ken,  or  heard  of  "  epiftles"  under 
the  name  of  Ignatius. 

And  the  fame  may  be  faid  of  Tertul- 
lian,and  other  writers,  *  between  the  days 

of 


It  may  not  be  unworthy  of  notice,  that,  among  the  nu- 
merous writings  of  ^  Fathers,  which  are  now  loft,  but 
were  extant  in  the  days  of  Eufebius,  and  red  by  him,  he 
has  named  no  one  that  fpcaks  oflgnatius  as  having  wrote 
"epiftles"  :  from  whence  it  may  be  fairly  concluded,  that 
they  made  no  mention  of  epiftles  of  his,  any  more  than 
thofe  which  have  been  handed  down  to  us.  For  nothing 
more  common  with  Eufebius,  than  to  cite  paftages  from 
the  wrklfrg$  that  are  now  loft,  and  paifages  too  which 
mention  f.hj  names  of  writers  con- temporary  with  Ignatius, 

and 


IGNATIUS.     *n 

of  Ignatius  and  Eufebius,  who  take  no 
notice  of  "  thefe  epiiHes"  ;  as  might  be 
particularly  illuftrated  with  reference  to 
them,  but  that  enough  has  been  alrea- 
dy faLd  to  let  the  reader  fee,  that  this  ne+ 
gative  evidence  is  fo  circumftanced  as  to 
give  juft  occafion  to  fufpect,  whether 
Ignatius  ever  wrote  the  "  epiftles"  that 
are  aicribed  to  him.  It 


and  pofterior  to  him.  It  is  therefore  to  the  higher!: 
degree  probable,  if  Eufebius  had  met  with  any  writers 
before  his  own  day,  who  had  mentioned  epiftles  of  Ig- 
natius, that  he  would  have  given  us,  at  leaft,  fome  inti-. 
mation  of  it.  It  is  obfervable,  he  has  preferved  a  frag- 
ment of  an  anonymous  author,  [fome  think  Maximus, 
for  reafons  it  would  be  needlefs  to  infert  here]  in  which 
he  fays,  in  confutation  of  the  herefy  of  Artemon,  who 
held  that  "  Chrift  was  only  a  meer  man,"  that  it  was 
"  firft  of  all  oppofed  by  the  holy  fcriptures,  and  next' 
by  the  books  of  fundry  men  long  before  the  time  of 
Victor,  I  mean  Juftin,  Miltiades,  Tatian,  Clement,  Ire- 
nxus,  Melito,  and  many  others;"  H.  E.  Lib.  v.  Cap. 
xviii.  No  notice  is  here  taken  of  Ignatius,  in  whefe 
epiftles,  if  his,  inthofe  editions  of  them  that  are  contend- 
ed for,  this  herefy  of  Artemon  is  as  directly  and  fully 
condemned,  as  by  any  of  the  writers  whofe  names 
are  particularly  mentioned.  Surely,  if  this  author  had 
known  of  thefe  epiftles,  he  would  not  have  omitted  to 
refer  to  them,  when  it  would  have  been  fo  pertinent  to 
the  argument  he  was  upon.  And  it  muft  be  acknowledg- 
ed, to  be  altogether  unaccountable,  if  epiftles  of  Ignati- 
us had  been  mentioned,  or  quoted,  in  any  of  the  writings 
now  loft,  but  in  being  in  the  days  of  Eufebius,  and  feen 
and  celebrated  by  him,  that  he  mould  pafs  over  fo  im- 
portant an  article  in  total  filenCe  ;  efpecially,  as  it  would 
have  been  fo  much  to  his  purpofe  to  have  been  particular' 
in  taking  notice  of  it. 


2iz     IGNATIUS. 

It  will  be  but  fair,  before  I  proceed, 
to  take  notice  of  the  fuppofed  evidence 
there  is,  within  the  three  firft  centuries, 
that  Ignatius  wrote  thefe  "  epifUes." 
And  this  I  fhall  do,  by  impartially  lay- 
ing before  the  reader  the  whole  of  it,  in 
the  very  words  of  the  original  authors, 
without  concealing  anyone  circumftance, 
within  my  knowledge,  that  will  add 
weight  to  it  ;  and,  at  the  fame  time,  I 
fhall  offer,  under  each  teftimony,  what 
may  be  faid  to  weaken  the  ftrength  of  the 
argument  herefrom  deduced. 

Polycarp  is  the  firft  witnefs  brought 
to  teftify,  that  Ignatius  wrote  the  "  epif- 
tles"  that  are  fuppofed  to  be  his.  The 
teftimony  to  this  purpofe  we  have  in  the 
Polycarpian  "  epiftle  to  the  Philippians." 
The  13th  and  14th  fe&ions,  in  which  it 
is  contained,  run  thus, 

Both  you,  and  Scripsistis  mi- 
Ignatius,  wrote  to  hi,  et  vos,  et  Igna- 
me,  that,  fhould  any  tius,  ut  fi  quis  va~ 
one  go  into  Syria,  dit  ad  Syriam,  de- 
he  might  carry  your  ferat  literas  meas 
letters,  if  either  I,  quas  fecero  ad  vos, 
or  the  meffenger  I  fi  habuerimus  tern- 
ftionld  pus 


IGNATIUS, 


213 


fhould  fend  for  you,    pus      opportunum, 
fhould    have  a   fa-    five  ego,    feu   lega- 
vorable   opportuni-    tus     quern    mifero 
ty.     The  epiftles  of   pro  vobis.     Epifto- 
Ignatius,  which  he    las  fane Ignatii,  quae 
fen t  to  us,  and   as    tranfmiflse  funtvo- 
many    other    as    bis  [fortafle  nobis *] 
we  had  by  us, we    ab    eo,    et    alias 
have   fent   to    you,    quantascumque, 
according   to    your    apud    nos     habui- 
defire   :    which  are    mus,  tranfmiffimus 
added   to  this  epif-    vobis,       fecundum 
tie,  by   which   you    quod    mandaftis     : 
may  be  greatly  pro-    quae   funt  fuj>je£t£e 
fited.        For    they   huic  epiftolae  ;    ex 
treat  of    faith,  pa-    quibus  magnus  vo-* 
tience,   and    what-   bis    erit    profeftus. 
ever  pertains  to  edi-    Continent  enim   fi- 
fication  in  the  Lord,    dem,  patientiam,  et 

omnem  edificatio- 
nem  ad  Dominum 
noftrum  pertinen- 
tern. 

And    fignify    to       Et  de  ipfo  Igna- 

me    what    ye    cer-   tio,    et  de  his   qui 

tainly  cum 

*  Arch-Bifhop  Ufher's  note  here  is,    Ita  locum  hunc 

citant   Eufebius,    Nicephorus,  et  Graecus  aftorum  Igna- 

tii  fcriptor    anonymus    ;    quam    legitimam  effe    ledti- 

-  onem,  agnofcit  etiam*Baronius."      In    the    tranflation 

*     of  Arch-Bilhop  Wake,  we  read  us,  inftead  of  you. 


tdf     IGNATIUS. 

tainly  know  about  cum  eo  font,  quod 
Ignatius,  and  thofe  certius  agnoveritis 
that  are  with  him.      fienificate. 

o 

It  is  thought  a  ftrong  confirmation 
of  this  teftimony  from  Polycarp,  that 
pufebius,  when  fpeaking  of  the  "  Igna- 
tian  epiltles,"  as  commemorated  by  him, 
quotes  from  him  this  paffage  in  the  ori- 
ginal Greek,  which  exhibits  the  very  idea 
that  is  conveyed  by  the  above  ancient 
verfion. 

Upon  this  "  Polycarpian  teftimony"  it 
may  be  obferved,  that  the  whole  para- 
graph, from  whence  it  is  taken,  is  fuf- 
pected  to  have  been  an  after  addition,  de- 
figned  to  give  credit  to  the  "  Ignatian 
epiftles".  And  two  things  are  offered  in 
fupport  of  fuch  a  fufpicion, 

The  firft  is,  its  apparent  abrupt- 
nefs,  and  want  of  relation  to  the  fore- 
going difcourfe.  There  is  no  connexion 
between  this,  and  what  went  before  : 
nor  had  Polycarp  dropped  any  hint,  that 
would  lead  one  to  expert  this  notice  of 
"  Ignatius  epiftles"  ;  and  what  is  laid, 
with  reference  to  thern*  is  (o  inferred,  as 

to 


f  G   N   A   T   I   U   S 


215 


ib  Its  manner,  that  no  one,  when  he  had 
read  the  foregoing  words,  coul  1  begin 
Upon  thefe  without  naturally  making  a 
paufe,  as  meeting  withr  what  he  had  no 
reafon  ghven  hint  to  took  for.  Some, 
erf  great  intimacy  with  the  ancierjt  wri- 
tings, have,  from  this  confitleratiorr  on- 
ly, been  inclined  to  fufpefr,  that  the  paf- 
fage  was  unfairly  crbuded  into  thfe  epif- 
tie.— But  I  only  mention  this  as  a  cir- 
cumftance,  that  may  give  weight  to  what 
may  be  further  offered  of  greater  irn^ 
portance. 

The  other  ground  of  fufpicion  there- 
fore is,  an  apparent  incdnfiftency,  or 
contradiction,  between  what  is  affirmed 
in  one  of  thefe  paflages,  and  another  in 
the  body  of  the  epiftle.  The  ninth  fee- 
tion  contains  thefe  words,  "  Whereforef 
I  exhort  all  of  you  to  obey  the  word  of 
righteoufriefs,  and  exercife  all  patience, 
which  ye  have  feen  fet  before  your  eyes, 
not  only  in  the  blefled  Ignatius,  and 
Zozimus,  andRufus,  but  in  others  among 
yourfehxs,  and  in  Paul  himfelf,  arrd  the? 
reft  of  the  Apoftles  :  being*  confident 
F  f  irr 

*  Confidences  quia  hi  omnQs  non  in  vaeuuh^conciifreriiTTV 
fed  in  fide  et  juftitia  j  et  ad  debitum  fibi  locum  a-Do*f 
miab,  cui  et  compaiii  funt,  abierunt, 


3i6     IGNATIUS. 

in  this,  that   all  thele  have  not   run   in 
vain,  but  in  faith  and  righteoufnefs  ;  and 

ARK     CONE      TO      THE     PLACE     DUE      TO 
THEM       FROM      THE     LoRD,      for     whom 

they  alfo  fu tiered".— Ignatius  is  fo  evi- 
dently here  fpoken  of,  as  having  fi- 
nifhed  his  fufferings,  and  gone  to  the 
Lord,  that  there  can  be  no  reafonable 
room  for  doubt  in  the  cafe.  These  all, 
[hi  omnes]  that  is,  Ignatius,  Zo- 
zimus,  Rufus,  and  others,  have  not- 
run    in   vain,    but  are  gone    to  the 

PLACE  DUE  TO  THEM  FROM  THE  LORD. 

No  one  that  reads  thefe  words  can  be  at 
a  lofs  to  determine,  that  Ignatius,  in  the 
thoughts  of   Polycarp,  was  really  dead> 
and  actually  gone  to  the  place  of  future 
rewards.     And  yet,  this  very  Ignatius  is 
here  directly  fuppofed  to  be    alive,  and 
not  come  to  his   laft  iiifFerings.     "  Sig- 
nify,  to  me  what  ye  know    about  Igna- 
tius,   and  those    that    are    with' 
him."      Is  not  this  a  manner   of  fpeak- 
ing  altogether  abfurd,  unlefs  it  had  been 
prefumed,  that  Ignatius  was  yet  alive  t 
The  mod  plain  fignification  of  the  words 
is,  that  this  was  the  real  truth.     Can  it 
now   be  imagined,  that  Polycarp,  after 
he  had  fpoken  of  Ignatius  as  actually 
3  i dead, 


IGNATIUS.     217 

dead,  and  recommended  his  fufferings 
and  death  as  an  example  to  others, 
(hould,  in  the  fame  fhort  epiftle,  fpeak  of 
him  as  alive,  and  defire  to  know  about 
him  ;  and  this,  from  the  very  perfons  to 
whom  he  had  recommended  his  death  as 
an  example  ?  This  would  be  veryftrange; 
and  it  would  be  diftionorary  to  fo  famous 
a  Father  to  fuppofe,  he  fhould  be  thus 
inconfiftent  with  himfelf :  but  it  is  np 
uncommon  thing  for  knavifh  perfons  to 
do  that,  which,  through  want  of  cauti- 
on, ferves  to  difcover  their  fraud. 

But  we  (hall  be  able  to  perceive  more 
fully  the  force  of  what  has  been  offer- 
ed, if  we  attend  a  while  to  what  has  been 
faid  to  weaken  its  ftrength. 

It  is  pleaded,  Polycarp  does  not,  in 
the  objefted  words,  infmuate  that  Igna- 
tius was  now  alive,  as  is  pretended,  in  con- 
tradiction tp  what  he  had  ,  faid  of  him  as 
dead,  in  fe6l.  ix.  But,  the  Philippians, 
being  likely  to  know  confiderable  about 
Ignatius,  both  while  hs  was  alive,  and 
while  he  was  fuffering  martyrdom,  he 
writes  to  them,  as  it  was  proper  and 
natural  for  to  him  to  do,  to  communicate 

to 


21 


8     IGNATIUS. 


jto  him  what  they  knew,  both  about  hira? 
and  tjiofe  that  were  fyis  companions. 
This  doth  not  feem  fatisfafrory.  The 
queftion  is  not,  what  the  Philippians 
might  know  about  Ignatius,  nor  whether 
it  was  proper  for  Poly.carp  to  defi.re  them 
to  tell  him  what  they  knew  about  him  ? 
]but  whether  the  manner  of  writing,  here 
ufed,  is  not  fuch  as  evidently  fuppofes; 
Ignatius  had  not  yet  come  to  his  laft  fuf- 
ferings,  contrary  to  wh3t  h,e  had  before 
expreflly  declared  ?  The  words,  «  figni- 
fy  to  m.e  what  ye  certainly  know  about 
Ignatius,  and  thofe  that  are  with 
iiim,"  obvioufly  fuppofe  the  perfpn  wrote 
about  to  be  alive.  And  it  is  obfervablc, 
he  is  reprefented  as  having  his  companions 
about  him.  "  Ignatius,  and  thorp  that 
are  with  him  ;"  are,  in  the  prefent  tenfe. 
And  if  Pplycarp  had  not  knpwn  that  he 
was  dead,  the  mode  of  diftion  is  eafy  and 
riaturaj  ;  but  uncouth,  I  may  fay  unin- 
telligible, if  compared  with  the  firm  per- 
iuafion  he  had  before  expreded,  that  he 
had  finifhed  his  courfe,  and  obtained  the 
crown  of  martyrdom. 

Others    endeavor    to    remove    the 
difficulty   another     way.      They  argue, 

Polycarp, 


I   G   N   A  T   I   U   S.     ti9 

Polycarp,  when  he  wrote  this  epiftle,  con- 
cluded in  his  own  mind,  that  Ignatius, 
by  this  time,had  gone  through  his  fuffer- 
$ngs  ;  for  which  r.eafon,  he  pertinently 
writes  as  in  feci,  ix  :  yet,  having  receiv- 
ed no  certain  account  of  bis  death,  and 
not  being  fully  fatisfied,  whether  he  had 
fuffered,  or  not ;  or,  if  he  had,  how  he 
ihad  be.en  treated  by  his  psrfecutors,  and 
Jiow  he  had  behaved  in.  his  laft  encoun- 
ter with  the  beads,  defires  the  Philippi- 
.ans,  who  were  much  nearer  toRome  than 
he  was,  and  might  therefore  very  proba- 
bly have  heard  much  later  from  thence 
then  he  had,  to  fend  him  an  account  of 
what  they  knew  relative  to  thefe  matters* 
And  in  all  this,  what,  they  fay,  is  there, 
not.thatlookslike^CQntradi6lion,  but  that 
is  not  very  natural,  and  particularly  moft 
becoming  the  love  and  friendfhip  of  the 
bleffed  Polycarp  towards  him,  concerning 
ivhom  he  fo  diligently  enquired  ?,  It  is 
pbvious,  at  firft  fight,  that  this  plea  di- 
rectly contr^di&s  the  foregoing  one  ; 
and  yet,  it  is  as  far  from  unfolding  the 
difficulty.  For,  from  the  \yhole  ftrain 
of  feft.  ix,  it  appears  with  a  meridian 
luftre,  that  Polycarp  vtqs  fully  perfuaded 
that  Ignatius  was  dpacj,  arid  gone  to  reap 

the 


220     I   G  N  A  T  I   U  S. 

the  fruit  of  his  fidelity  to  his  Lord.  He 
was  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  truth  of  this 
fact,  nor  needed  any  information  about 
it.  He  fpeaks  of  it  as  a  matter  that  was 
well  known  both  to  himfelf,  and  to  the 
Philippians  :  nor  can  words  more  clearly 
and  ftrongly  fignify  this,  than  thofe  he 
has  ufed  to  the  purpofe.  M  These  all/' 
therefore  Ignatius  among  the  reft,  and 
as  truly  as  Paul,  and  the  other  Apoftles, 
"have-not  run  in  vain,  but  a*e  with  the 
Lord  in  the  place  due  to  them/'  And  yet, 
according  to  the  plea  here  made,  it  is 
fuppofed  that  Polycarp,  in  the  objected 
words,  fpeaks  of  it  as  a  matter  of  uncer- 
tainty, whether  Ignatius  had  come  to  his 
encounter  with  the  beafts  ;  which  is  no 
way  reconcileable  with  the  clear  perfua- 
fioh  of  his  being  dead,  he  had  before  ex- 
preffed  in  feft.  ix. 
gnfms 

It  is  further  faid,  in  favor  of  the  g^- 
mririenefs  of  this  paffage,  that  no  one 
whodefigned  to  ferve  a  turn  by  corrupt- 
ing this  epifHe  would  have  been,  .cither 
fo  negligent  as  not  carefully  to  read  it? 
over,  or  haying  done  this,7  would  have 
been'fo  foolifh  as  to  have  Subjoined  a 
recjiieft  to  the  Philippians  in  direcT: 
dl*  contradiction 


I   G  N  A   T   I   U.S.       22t 

contradiction  to  what  the  truePolycarp  had 
told  them  before  ;  and  which,  by  confe- 
quence,   muft   difcover    the   fraud,    and 
fruftrate  the  defign  in  view.      This,  it  is 
poflible,  may  Teem  an  argument  of  weight 
to  thofe    unacquainted  with  antiquity  ; 
but  it  will  not  appear  in  the  fame  light 
to  fuch  as  are  verfed  in  this  kind  of  ftu- 
dy  ;  as  they  have  often  met  with  like  in- 
ftances  of  folly.     Whether  the  perfons 
guilty  of    fuch  fraudulent  dealing  ^were 
commonly  weak  ;  or  whether  they  ima- 
gined thofe  they  defigned  to  impofe  up- 
on  were  of  this  character  ;  or  whether, 
though  artful   and  cunning,  they  were 
left  in-  Providence  (as  is  often  the  cafe  at 
prefent  in   regard  of  all  kinds  of  cheats) 
to  do  that,  through  careleffnefs  and  in- 
attention, which   ferves  to  difcover  their 
fraud,  I  lhall  not  pretend  to  fay  ;  but  it 
is  a  fact  notorioufly  known,  that  whole 
pieces,  as  well  as  interpolated  sen- 
tences  were,    in  thofe  days,  obtruded 
upon  the  world,  full  as  ridiculous  as  this 
fuppofed  corruption  can  be  reprefented 
to  be.     Signal    inftances   of  this  nature 
are  to  be  met  with  in  the  ff  apoftolical 
conftitutions  and  canons,"  which  are  uni- 
veifally  allowedto.  have  been  fraudulently 

dealt 


222 


I   G  N   A  T  I  U  gj 


iy  dealt  with,  even  by  thofe  who  have* 
not  an  opinion  of  tbem  as  fpurions. 
The  interpolations,  and  additions,  made' 
in  thefe  writings,  do  fo  groffly  break  m; 
upon  the  order  of  time,  the  declared  mind 
of  the  Apoftles  in  the  infpired  books,  antl' 
are  fo  often  chargeable  with  contradict- 
ing other  parts  of  the  fame  writings, 
that  one  cowld  fcarce  believe  it  poffibk 
a  perfon  of  common  fenfe  fhould  be 
guilty  of  fuch  ridiculous  weaknefs,  but 
that  there  is  no  arguing  againft  ftubboriv 
fadt.  ■  The  reader  that  is  inclined  to  fee 
this  fuppofed  addition  to*' <  PolycarpYeptf-1 
tie"  fully  matched  for  the  weaknefs,  and* 
folly,  it  isfaid  to  contain,  may  meet  witb: 
it  done  to  his  mind,  in  what  has  been' 
offered/  under  tbe  head  of  "  element's^ 
writings/'  in  the  preceeding  pages.  To 
the  Like  purpofe  he  may  confult  Dr, 
Smallbroke's  ff  Clementine  Cortftitutions 
€onfuted,in  anfwer  to  Mr.  Whifton." 

But  if  we  drop1  the  fuppofrtion  of  an' 
"  interpolation,"  and  even  allow  thi^ 
"  Polycarpian  teftimony,"  to  be  uftfuf- 
pecTedly  genuine,  it  will  not,  at  once,  ast 
too  many  have  imagined,  decide  the* 
controversy    relative   to    the  "  Ignatia-a 

epiflles-,"' 


IGNATIUS.     22% 

epiftles."  For  it  does  not  prove  what  it  is 
brought  for ;  but  leaves  the  greateft  part 
of"  tkeie  epiftles"  deftitute  of  all  real 
evidence  in  their  fupport.  At  moft,two 
only  of  thefe  epiftles  are  certainly  taken 
notice  of.  No  more  are  couched  under 
thore  words  of  Polycarp,  "  the  epiftles 
of  Ignatius  which  he  fent  to  us  :"  nor 
do  the  greateft  patrons  of  "  Ignatius's 
writings"  pretend,  that  any  other  are  here 
referred  to,  than  his  ".epiftle  to  the  Smyr- 
naeans,"  and  a  particular  one  to  "  Poly- 
carp himfelf."  And  as  to  the  words  that 
immediately  follow,  "  and  as  many  other 
epiftles  as  we  had  by  us  ;"  thdugh  they 
are  interpreted,  by  epifcopal  writers,  to 
mean  "  the  other  epiftles  of  Ignati- 
us," there  is  not  the  lead  need,  unlefs  to 
ferve  a  turn,  to  look  upon  them  as  re- 
ferring at  all  to  any  of  the  «  Ignatiaa 
epiftles."  They  are  generally  wrote, 
without  any  limitation  to  Ignatius, 
Arch-Bifhop  Wake  indeed  has  been  plea- 
fed,  no  lefs  than  three  times  *  to  infert 
the  words  of  h  is, without  giving  the  reader 
a#y  notice  that  they  were  words  of  his  owa 
putting  in  ;  by  means  whereof  the  meer 
G  g  Englifti 

*  Apoft.  Fathers,   p.    32,   31,   and  in  his  tranilatioa  of 
.the  epiftle,  p.  59. 


324     IGNATIUS. 

Englifh  reader,  and  all  who  have  feen  on- 
ly his  tranflation,  are  unavoidably  led  to 
imagine,  that  the  words,  in  "  Polycarp'3 
epiftle,"  are  abfolutely  confined  to  Igna- 
tius ;  when,  in  truth,  they  are  generally* 
expreffed,  having  nothing  to  anivver  the 
Arch-Biihop's  limiting  words  of  his.-  In 
rhe  •"'  old  verfion"  of  Polycarp,  the  w6rtfs 
tim  thus,  "  Epiftolas  lane  Tgnatii,  *]U3e 
tranfmiflae  funt  vobis  [pro  nobis]  ab  eo, 
et  alias  quantascumque  apud  nos 
habuimus/tranfmifiimus  vobis,  feenndum 
quod  mandafHs."  The  original  Greek, 
as  quoted  by  Eufehius,  perfectly  agrees 
herewith.     What  is  translated  in  the  old 

COpy,    "    ET    ALIAS    QUANTASCUMQUE," 

is  in  the  Greek,  kai  allas  o-sas.  It  is 
acknowledged,  in  the  firft  part  of  this 
paffage,  fc  Epiftles  of  Ignatius"  are  di- 
rectly mentioned  ;  that  is,  the  Epifcopa- 
lians  themfelves  being  judges,  *  two  of 
the  epiftles  faid  to  be  his,  "  one  to  Poly- 
carp in  the  "other  to  the  church  of  Smyr- 
na :"  but,  in  the  latter  part  of  it,  the 

words 

*  "  -Epiftolas  fane  Ignatii/'  Arch-Eifhop  Wake  tranffetes 

•1  the  epiftles   of  Ignatius  ;"  and  in  the  margin  has 

'  tliefc  'words,   "  that  is,  to  himfelf,  and  to  the  church  of 

Smyrna".     Cotelerius's  note  upon  the  fame  words  is  this^ 

"  deiignantur  dux  Ignatii   epiftolas  :    una  ad   Polycar- 

pum  j  altera  ad  Polycarpi  feu  Smymemfem  ecciefiam. 


?' 


IGNATIUS-       225 

words  are  general,  and  fo  far  from  be- 
ing limited  to  Ignatius,  that  they  may, 
with   propriety,  be  interpreted  of. ant* 
epistles  whatever,  Polycarp,  or  the 
church  of  Smyrna,  might  have  had  by 
them,    of  other   famous    primitive    Fa- 
thers.    And  there  are  forne  confiderati.-? 
ons    that  fairly  lead   to  iuch  a  general 
conftru£lion  of   the  words.       For  it  is 
plain,  thefe  epiftles  were  fent,  by   Poly- 
carp and  his  church,   to  the  church  at 
Philippi,  at  their  defire  which  had  beea 
fignhied  to  them.     "  We  have  fent  the 
epiftles  as  you  defired."     And  it  is  quite 
eafy  and  natural  to  conceive  of  their  fend- 
ing, upon  the  defire  of  the  Philippians, 
the  "    epiftles"  Ignatius    had  wrote   to 
them.      But  how  fhould  they  come  by 
his  other  epiftles,  thoife  which  he  wrote 
to  the  "  Magnefians,"  to  the  "   Phila- 
delphians,"  to  the  "  Ephefians,"  to  the 
"  Romans,"   and  to  the  "  Trallians  ?"" 
And  why  (hould  the  church  at  Philippi 
fend  to  them  for  thefe  epiftles  ?   If  Ig- 
natius had  really  wrote  to  thefe  churches, 
and  the  Philippians  had  a  mind  to  fee  his 
epiftles  to  them,  it  would  have  been  na- 
tural fpr  jthem  to  have  fent  to  thofe  churw 
caes  for  a  copy  of  their  refpe&ive  letters ; 

and 


226       IGNATIUS. 

and  in  every  refpeft  as  natural  as  was 
their  fending  toPolycarp,  and  his  church, 
for  the  letters  he  wrote  to  them.  It  there- 
fore looks  as  if  the  "  epiftles",  here  fpoken 
of,  as  fent  to  the  Philippians,  were  thofe 
"epiftles  of  Ignatius"  which  he  had  wrote 
to  Polycarp,  and  the  Smyrnaeans  ;  and 
"  fuch  other  epiftles",  of  other  famous 
perfons,  as  they  had  by  them,  that  might 
be  of  more  fpecial  value.  There  is  no- 
thing in  this  conftru&ion  of  the  words 
that  appears  ftrained,  or  unnatural  -,  nor 
is  there  the  leaft  need  of  any  other  inter- 
pretation. And  fhould  this  prove  to  be 
the  true  conftruftion,  only  two  of  the 
*'  SEVEN  Ignatian  epiftles"  are  here  men- 
tioned. The  remaining  five  muft  be 
taken  care  of  by  others.  Yea,  fhould  we 
allow  of  the  Epifcopalian  interpretation, 
the  matter  would  not  be  a  great  deal 
mended.  In  this  cafe,  it  is  true,  it  might 
be  argued,  that  Ignatius  wrote  more  than 
two  epiftles  ;  but  what  other  epiftles, 
to  whom,  or  how  many,  would,  after 
all,  remain  an  utter  uncertainty.  The 
words  fpccify  nothing.  "  And  as  many 
other  epiftles  as  we  had  by  us  :"--- No- 
thing is  here  faid  by   which  it  can  be 

determined, 

i 


IGNATIUS.     227 

determined,  how  many  epiftles  were  in- 
tended, nor  whether  any  of  the  prefent 
colle&ion  were  of  their  number. 

But,  if  we  fhould  fuppofe  all  that  is 
pleaded  for  this  teftimony,  from  Poly- 
carp,  to  be  really  true,  the  controverfy 
about  thefe  "  epiftles,"  in  point  of  de- 
pendence on  them,  as  containing  the 
fenfe  of  Ignatius,  will  remain  ftill  un- 
determined. For  if  it  be  allowed,  that 
Polycarp  fent  a  colle&ion  of  "  feven  Ig- 
natian  epiftles"  to  the  church  at  Philip- 
pi  ;  it  will  not  follow  from  hence,  that 
the  prefent  colle&ion  of  the  like  number 
of  epiftles,  under  the  name  of  Igna- 
natius,,  is  the  fame  incorrupt,  unadulte- 
rated colleftion  with  that  of  Polycarp's. 
It  is  granted,  it  was  not  the  fame  before  the 
days  of  Ufher,  and  Voflius.  And,  fince 
the  appearance  of  thofe  learned  antiqua- 
ries, the  cafe  may  poflibly  be  the  fame  ; 
and  it  muft  evidently  be  fo,  if  the  collefti- 
on  of  thefe  "  epiftles,"  in  their  fuppofed 
beft  edition,  contain  fuch  things  as  argue 
3  date  pofterior  to  the  age  in  which  Igna- 
tius lived,and  that  are  altogether  unworthy 
of  that   primitive  Father,  and  martyr  : 

and 


zzS     I   G  N   A  T  I  U   S. 

and  that  they  contain  fueh  things  as 
thefe,  we  fhall  have  occafion,  in  its  pro- 
per place,  particularly  to  evince. 

In  the  mean  time,  let  us  go  on  to  Ire- 
naeus,  the  next  writer,  within  the  fecond 
century,  cited  in  favor  of  the  "  epiftles 
of  Ignatius".  His  words  are  thefe,  "  as 
one  from  among  us  said,  being  adjudg- 
ed to  the  hearts  that  he  might  be  a  mar- 
tyr for  God  ;  /  am  the  corn  of  Chrift,  and, 
am  ground  with  the  teeth  of  bcajls>  that  I 
may  be  found  the  pure  bread  of  God".  * 
Thefe  words  are  found  in  the  epiftle  to 
the  Romans,  under  the  name  of  Igna- 
tius, fe&.  iv.  And  it  is  thought  a 
weighty  circumftance  attending  this  tes- 
timony, that  Eufebius  has  quoted  it,  and 
after  this  manner  ;  "  and  Irenaeus  knew 
of  his  [Ignatius's]  martyrdom,  and  makes 
mention  of  his  epiftles  in  thefe  .words,: 
"  as  one  among  us  said,  [eipe]  being  ad- 
judged to  the  beafts  for  the  teftimony  o£ 

God, 

*  Quemadmodum  quidam  de  noftris  dixit,  prompter 
inaJtyrium  in  Deum  adjudicates  ad  beftias  ;  '?quoni;::n 
frumentnm  fum  Chrifti,  et  per  dentcs  beftiariim'mo!or,T 
ut  mundus  panis  Dei  hivcniar."  Adverf.  Hccet.  Lib.. 
v.   Oap/^xxviii. 


I   6  N    A  t   I   U   S. 


229 


God,  I  am  the  wheat  of  God,  and  am  ground 
with  the  teeth  of  beafts,  that  I  may  be  found 
pure  bread"  \ 

In  anfwertothis  teftimony  of  Irenaeus, 
it  is  allowed,  that  Ignatius  is  the  perfori 
here  referred  to,  and  that  the  cited  words 
are  to  be  feen  in  one  of  the  extant  epif- 
ties  under  his  name. 

But  this  notwithftanding,  it  does  not 
appear  fufficiently  evident,  that  Irenseus 
either  knew  of  this  "  epiftle,"  or  took 
this  fentence  out  of  it.      It  is  certain,  he 
makes  no  mention  of  the  "  epiftle,"  nei- 
ther does  he  anywhere  fay,  that  he  trans- 
cribed thefe  words  from  it.      And  it  is 
obfervable,  the  words  are  not  introduced, 
"  as  one  from  among  us  wrote  y    but 
"  as  one  from  among  us  said."     A  great 
deal  of  pains  has  been  taken  to   prove, 
that  the  phrafe,  "  as  was  faid,"  is  not  on- 
ly proper,  but  frequently  ufed,  even  by 
Irenaeus   himfelf,  to  introduce  citations 
from  known  written   books.       And  no 
one  ever  queftioned  its  being  a  phrafe, 

both 

P  H.  E.   Lib.  iii.  Cap.  xxxvi,  where  the  Greek  of  E»fe- 
f .  bius  well  agrees  with  the  Latin  of  Irenseus, 


23° 


I   G   N   A   T   I   U   S' 


both  proper,  and  commonly  ufed,  by  all 
kinds  of  authors,  by  which  to  bring  in 
the  written  words  of  others.  But  the 
queftion  is,  whether  it  is  not  as  proper  a 
mode  of  fpeech,  and  as  commonly  ufed, 
to  introduce  the  vocal  as  the  written  fay- 
ings  of  others  ?  And  fince  the  point  in 
debate  is,  whether  Ignatius  wrote  thefe 
epiftles,  how  can  it  be  thought  a  fatis- 
faftory  proof,  that  he  did,  to  bring  a 
quotation  from  Irenaeus,  introduced  af- 
ter that  manner,  "  as  one  of  us  said  ?" 
which  phrafe,  to  fay  the  leaft,  is  as  well 
capable  of  being  interpreted  to  refer  to  a 
vocal,  as  a  written,  faying  ?  It  is 
replied  to  this,  the  words  here  quoted 
are  found  in  one  of  the  written  "epiftles" 
afcribed  to  Ignatius,  which  is  a  circum- 
ftance  that  oug-ht,  in  all  reafon,  to  de- 
termine the  matter,  that  Irenasus  took 
them  from  this  "  epiftle."  I  anfwer, 
the  total  filence  of  Irenaeus  about  any 
epiftles  of  Ignatius,  when  he  had  the 
faireft,  the  moft  frequenr,  and  moft 
urgent  occafions,  to  have  mentioned 
them,  is  a  circumftance  full  as  ftrong 
to  induce  a  belief,  that  he  knew  nothing 
of  them.  But  this  is  not  all.  Nothing 
njore  common  with  Irenaeus,   than   to 

have 


IGNATIUS 


231 


have  recourfe  to  the   vocal    fayings  of 
thofe  that    were  ancienter  than  himfelf ; 
and  a  great  number  oi  them  are   intro- 
duced, in  the  very  fame  manner  with  thefe 
words  of  Ignatius,  "  asiuch  an  onefaid." 
And  as  Irenacus  was  acquainted  with  Po- 
lycarp,  Ignatins's    contemporary,  and    a 
vaft  number  of  other  ancients;  why  might 
he   not  have   received  this   faying   from 
them,  as  what  had  been  uttered  by  Igna- 
tius,   in  the  day  of  his  martyrdom  ?  nor 
is  this  meer  conjecture  only.     For  thefe 
very  words  are  mentioned  by  Jerom,  as 
delivered   by  Ignatius  in   his  laft  fuffer- 
ings.    His  words  are  thefe:*'*  Now, when 
he  had   been   condemned   to  the  beads, 
and  in  the  heat  of  his  fuffering  had  heard 
the  roaring  of  the  lions,  he  faid,  I  am  the 
torn  ofCbriJl,  lam  ground  with  the  teeth 
of  bea/is,   that  I  may  be  found  pure  bread* 
And  u  the  aits  of  Ignatius's  martyrdom," 
both  the  Greek  and  Latin   acts,  exhibit 
the  fame  account  with  Jerorn  ;  and  fo  do 
Simeon  the  Metaphralf,  and  the  Roman 
breviary.  Epifcopalians  will  not  deny,that 
H  h  thefe 


u  Cum  jam  damnatus  eflet  ad  beftias,  et  ardore  patien- 
di,  rugientcs  audiret  leones,  ait  :  frumentum  Chrifti 
funs,  dentibus  bcftiarum  molor,  ut  panis  munduii  in- 
veniar,"   Vid.  lib.  de  viris  illuft.   Cap.  i6% 


232     IGNATIUS. 

thefe  words  were  uttered  by  Ignatius,  in 
the  time  of  his  fuffering.  What  diffi- 
culty can  there  then  be  in  fuppofing,  that 
Irenaeus  fhould  make  mention  of  them, 
as  a  known,  memorable  saying  of  his  ? 
And  why  mould  not  this  be  rather  fup- 
pofed,  than  that  he  mould  take  them  from 
that  "epiftle"  which  is  attributed  to  him 
as  its  author  ?Efpecially,  as  there  are  fuch 
notorious  circumftances,  all  confpiring 
to  encourage  the  thought,  that  he  never 
law  it. 

But  if  we  fhould  allow  this  teftimony 
its  utmoft  force,  no  more  can  be  collect- 
ed from  it,  than  that  there  was  extant  in 
the  days  of  Irenaeus  one  seventh  part 
©f  thofe  epiftles  that  now  go  under  the 
name  of  Ignatius.  For  it  is  only  the 
•*  epiftle  to  the  Romans,"  one  of  the  fe- 
ven  that  are  attributed  to  him,  that  is 
here  referred  to.  And  every  one,  at  the 
iirft  view,  muft  be  fenfible,  how  weak  a 
teftimony  this  is  ;  and  that  if  it  be  al- 
lowed, or  difallowed,  it  will  neither  much 
hurt,  or  benefit,  the  general  credit  of 
thefe  "  epiftles."  And  what  may  be 
thought  worthy  of  notice,  this  "  epiftle 
to  the  Romans,"  the  only  one,  upon  the 

largeft: 


IGNATIUS.       223 

largeft  fuppofition,here  referred  to,  is  the 
only  one,  among  all  the  "  Ignatian  epif- 
tles/'  that  is  filent  about  the  caufe  of 
Epifcopacy.  Nothing,  as  I  remember, 
is  laid  here  upon  this  head  ;  not  fo  much 
as  the  name  Bifhop  mentioned,  unlefs 
once  very  tranfiently.  So  that  this  is  the 
only  "  epiftle,"  among  the  "  feven,"  that 
is  infignificant  to  the  controverfy  we  are 
upon.  And  if  it  be  received  as  quoted 
by  Irenaeus,  it  will  do  the  Prefbyterians 
no  differvice  ;  neither,  if  it  be  reje&ed  as 
unknown  to  him,  will  it  do  the  Epifco- 
palians  any  harm.  It  is  perfectly  a  mat- 
ter of  no  importance,  as  to  the  prefent 
difpute,  what  becomes  of  it,  or  is  faid 
about  it. 

After  Irenaeus,  Origen,  who  flourifh- 
ed  in  the  third  century,  is  recurred  to. 
In  his  "  prologue  to  the  commentaries 
on  canticles,"  he  fays,  "  We  remember 
one  to  have  faid,  Ignatius  by  name,  con- 
cerning Chrift,  but  my  love  is  crucified-,  nor 
do  I  judge  him  worthy  of  reproof  for 
this."  *      Thefe    words    occur    in    the 

Ignatian 

*  "    Meminimus  aliquem   dixifle,  nomine   Ignatium,   de 

Chrifto,  "  meus  autem  amor  crucitixijs  eft"  ;  nee  reprehen- 
di  eum  pro  hoc  dignumjmiico," 


234     IGNATIUS. 

"  Ignatian  epiftle  to  the  Romans,"  feclion 
vii.  This  fameOrigen,in  his  "fixthjhomily 
on  Lake,"  fpeaks  thus,  "  I  have  found  it 
elegantly  wrote  in  the  epiftle  of  a  certain 
martyr,  Ignatius  I  mean,  Bifhop  of  Antioch, 
the  fecond  after  Peter,  who  fought  with 
beafts  in  the  perfecution  at  Rome,  the 
virginity  of  Mary  Hsxqs  kept  Jeer et  from  the 
prince  of  this  world.  *  Thefe  words  we 
have  in  the  "Ignatian  epiftle  to  theEphe- 
fians,"  left,  xix. 

To  thefe  teftimonies  from  Origen,  it 
muft  be  faid,  that  they  lie  under  the  un- 
happinefs  of  being  as  exceptionable,  as 
well  as  thofe  we  have  already  confidered. 
As  to  the  firft  of  them,  it  is  taken  from 
a  piece  that  is  thought,  by  many  of  the 
moll  learned  writers,  not  to  be  Origen's, 
(who  wasaPrefbyter  of  the  Greek  church) 
but  the  work  of  fome  Latin  author  :  or, 
fhould  it  be  fuppofed  to  be  his,  we  have 
it  only  in  the  tranilation  of  Ruffin,  who 
has  taken  fuch  a  lhameful  liberty  in  all 
his  tranflations  of  Origen,  to  add,  alter, 

and1 

•  "  E!eganter  in  cujusdam  martyris  epiftola  fcriptum 
reperi,    lgnatium    dico,    Epifcopum    Antiochiae,     poll 

Petrum  fecundum,  qui  in  perfecutione  Rcmae  pugnavit 
ad   heftias,    "  principem  faxuli  hujus   latuit   Virginitas 

Maris." 


IGNATIUS.     235 

and  diminifh,  that  there  is  no  knowing 
what  is  his  own,  and  what  Origen's  : 
and  this  is  fo  generally  acknowledged, 
and  lamented,  by  the  learned,  that  a  word 
need  not  be  faid  in  proof  of  it.  It  is,  I 
fuppofe,  for  this,  or  the  foregoing  rea- 
fon,  or  both,  that  thofe  celebrated  anti- 
quaries, Ufher,  and  Voflius,  do  neither 
of  them  make  ufe  of  this  Origenical 
teftimony,  in  the  evidence  they  ex- 
hibit in  favor  of  the  "epiftlesof  Ignati- 
us" ,•  as  may  be  feen  in  their  "  prefaces"  to 
their  editions  of  thefe  "  epiftles,"  in  Le' 
Clerc's  edition  of  Cotelerius's  "  apofloli- 
cal  Fathers."  They  were  certainly  well 
acquainted  with  it  ;  and  if  they  had 
thought  it  of  any  fignificancy,  they  would 

have  infifled  on  it. As  for  the  other 

teftimony,  taken  from  the  "  homily  on 
Luke,"  this  alfo  is  fufpeded  to  be  the 
work,  not  of  Origen,  but  of  fome  Latin 
writer  :  or  otherwife,  it  is  extant  only 
in  Latin  ;  and  if  it  was  tranflated  from 
the  Greek  by.  Jerom,  as  is  pretended, 
there  is  no  knowing  what  is  Origen's. 
Du-pin  fays, "  the  verfions  of  Jerom  are 
not  more  exaft  than  Ruffin's  :  and  Ruf- 
fin  complains  of  the  liberty  Jerom  took 
in  his  tranflations,as  Jerom  complains  of 

Ruffin" 


236     IGNATIUS, 

Ruffim"  And,  furely,  no  great  credit 
ought  to  be  given  to  meer  tranflations, 
which  are  known  to  have  been  done  with 
an  unbounded  licence  :  and  as  this  is  the 
cafe  here,  thefe  testimonies,  brought  to 
view,  in  evidence  that  Ignatius  wrote 
"  epiftles,"  are  of  little  weight,  and  will 
be  efteemed  fo  by  impartial  judges. 

It  would  be  an  omiffion  if  I  did  not 
add,  it  is  a  fhrewd  circumftance,  in  fa- 
vor of  Origen's  having  never  made  men- 
tion of  the  "  Ignatian  epiftles,"  that 
Eufebius  takes  not  the  leaft  notice  of  it. 
No  one  was  a  greater  admirer,  and  rea- 
der, of  Origen's  works  than  Eufebius  ; 
nor  was  there  an  ancient  Father  more 
thoroughly  verfed  in  them.  '  It  cannot 
therefore  be  accounted  for,  if  Origin  had, 
in  the  above  fpecified  places,  commemo- 
rated Ignatius,  that  he  fliould  be  totally 
filent  about  it.  It  is  much  more  natu- 
ral to  think,  they  are  not  the  words  of 
Origen,  but  of  fome  interpolator,  or  falfe 
interpreter. 

We  have  now  confidered  the  whole 
evidence,  in  proof  that  Ignatius  wrote 
fuch  "  epiftles"  as  go  under  his  name, 

until 


IGNATIUS.     237 

until  we  come  into  the  fourth  century. 
And,  I  doubt  not,  that  has  been  offered, 
which,  to  every  unbiaffed  mind,  will 
appear  fufficient  to  induce  a  lufpicion, 
left  the  venerable  Ignatius  fhould  have 
been  perfonated  by  fome  bold  impoftor. 
IVIoft  certainly,  the  evidence,  in  fupport 
of  his  being  the  real  author  of  thefe 
"epiftles,'*  falls  vaflly  fhort  of  what  might 
reafonably  have  been  expected.  There 
are,  in  all,  but  three  writers,  for  the 
full  (pace  of  two  hundred  years,  that  are 
produced  as  witneffes,  and  the  evidence 
they  give  is  fo  clogged  with  difficulties, 
as  to  occafion  great  doubt  and  hefi- 
tation.  And,  in  truth,  confidering  the 
character  of  Ignatius,  his  nearnefs  to  the 
Apoftles,  the  extraordinary  circumftan- 
ces  of  his  death,  the  uncommon  occa- 
fion of  his  writing  thefe  "  epiftles"  (if 
they  are  truly  his)  :  confidering,  I  fay, 
thefe  things,  I  may  venture  to  appeal  to 
the  common  fenfe  of  mankind,  whether 
it  is  not  aftonifhing,  that  fuch  epiftles, 
of  fuch  a  man,  fhould  be  paffed  over  in 
fuch  fllence  for  two  hundred  years  toge- 
ther j  no  one  writer  making  mention  of 
them,  unlefs  in  fuch  a  manner,  and  un- 
der fuch  marks  of  lufpicion,  as  to  leave 

the 


*38     IGNATIUS. 

the  mind  in  a  ftate  of  uncertainty,  to  fay 
the  leaft  ?  I  will  not  affirm,  notwith- 
ftanding  all  that  has  been  offered,  that 
Ignatius  wrote  none  of  the  "  epiftles"  he 
is  faid  to  have  wrote,  though,  to  me,  it 
appears  highly  improbable  that  he  ever  did. 

I  should  now  have  gone  on  to  fhow, 
that  the  "  Ignatian  epiftles"  are,  if  not 
fpniious,  yet  fo  intermixed  with  corrup- 
tion, as  to  be  unfit  to  be  recurred  to  in 
the  prefent  controverfy.  But  previous  to 
this,  I  (hall  take  notice  of  a  difficulty 
that  is  urged,  upon  the  fuppofition  Igna- 
tius is  not  allowed  to  have  wrote  thefe 
"  epiftles''  that  are  afcribed  to  him,  and 
faid   to  be   his. 

It  is  this,  that  Eufebius  certainly 
thought,  "  thefe  epiftles"  were  wrote  by 
Ignatius  himfelf.  And  as  he  was  a  per- 
ion  well  capable  of  judging  in  this  mat- 
ter, much  better  than  we  who  live  at  fo 
great  a  diftance  from  the  times  of  Igna- 
tius, it  is  faid  to  be  a  very  bold  thing 
now  to  plead,  that  "  thefe  epiftles"  are 
fpurious. 

To 


IGNATIUS.     339 

To  this  the  reply  is,  Eufebius  was  un- 
doubtedly a  perfon  of  great  learning,  fome 
think,  the  moil  learned  among  all  the 
chriftian  Greek  Fathers.  And  we  are  ex- 
ceedingly beholden  to  him  for  many  va- 
luable fragments  of  the  works  of  many 
valuable  primitive  Authors,  which  have 
long  fince  periflhed  by  the  injury  of 
time  ;  as  alfo  for  a  great  variety  of  know- 
ledge, relative  to  the  Chriftian  hiftory, 
we'rnuft  other  wife  have  been  deftitute 
of.  But  this  notwithftanding,  we  are 
not  obliged  to  call  him  Mq/ler,  and,  at  all 
adventures,  to  take  every  thing  for  truth 
juft  as  he  has  delivered  it.  For,  after 
all  his  learning,  and  whatever  good  qua- 
lities he  might  be  poffeffed  of,  he  was  a 
man  "  fubjedl  to  like  infirmities"  with 
others ;  and  there  are  too  many  inftan- 
ces,  in  his  writings,  of  carelefihefs,  want 
of  due  attention,  and  a  more  thorough 
examination,  not  to  fay  any  thing  worfe. 
And  he  is,  on  all  fides,  frequently  charg- 
ed with  flips  and  miftakes,  and  fome  that 
are  very  grofs.  The  great  Scaliger  fays 
of  him,  "  No  one  has  contributed  more 
to  the  Chriftian  hiftory,  and  no  one  is 
guilty  of  more  miftakes."  Of  the  fame 
Blind  was  the  learned  Du-pin,  though  he 
I  i  exprelfes 


240     I  G  N   A  T  I  U  S. 

exprefies  himfelf  in  fofter  terms..  For, 
having  faid  what  he  judged  proper  in  com- 
mendation of  his  "  ecclefiaftical  hiftory," 
he  adds,  "  it  muft  neverthelefs  be  ac- 
knowledged, it  is  not  altogether  lo  perfeft 
as  were  to  be  wiflaed  :for  it  is  not  written 
fmoothly,  neither  is  it  always  exaft." 
And  in  his  note  here,  he  reckons  up,  at 
leaft,  half  a  fcore  of  faults,  which,  fays 
he,  "  are  contrary  both  to  the  truth  of 
hiftory,  and  chronology."  Nor  do  any 
of  the  noted  antiquaries,  either  Protectant 
.or  Romifh,  Epifcopal  or  Prefbyterian, 
think  themfelves  obliged  facredly  to  ad- 
here to  him  ;  but  do  all,  in  their  turns, 
take  liberty  to  differ  from  him,  and,  as 
£hey  imagine,  upon  juft  grounds. 

But  what  is  more  particularly  perti- 
nent to  what  we  are  upon,  Eufebius  too 
creduloufly  fuffered  himfelf  to  be  fome- 
times  betrayed  into  the  belief  of  that, 
which,  if  he  had  examined  with  more  care, 
caution,  and  fufpicion,  he  would  readily 
have  rejefted.  There  are  inftances  of 
this  to  be  met  with  in  his  valuable  hifto- 
ly.  One  I  fhall  here  mention,  as  being 
full  to  the  point  under  confideration.  In 
the  laft  chapter  but  one  of  the  firft  book 

of 


IGNATIUS. 


241 


of  this  Jhiftory,  we  have  a  moft  formal  ac- 
count of  "  Agbarus's  letter,King  of  Edef- 
fa,    to  our  Savior  Jefus  Chrift,   fent  to 
him  at  Jerufalem  by  Ananias   his  foot- 
man ;"  and  our  "  Savior's  letter  to  King 
Agbarus  in  anfwer  to  it."     And,  in  the 
following  chapter,  both  thefe  letters  are 
inferted  at  large,  Eufebius  having  trans- 
lated them  out  of  the  Syriac  language,  in 
which  they  were  wrote,  as  he  found  the 
copies  of  them  in  the  archieves  of  Edef- 
fa.      And  thefe  epiftles,   which  he  thus 
publifhed  to  the  world,  he  as  verily  be- 
lieved were  wrote,  one  of  them  by  our 
Savior,  and  the  other  by  King  Agbarus, 
as  he  did,  that  the  epiftles  he  mentions 
under  the  name  of  Ignatius  were  wrote 
by  him.     What  regard  nowdo  the  learn- 
ed world   pay   to  Eufebius's    judgment, 
with  refpedt  to  thefe  letters  ?  Do  they  hold 
fhemfelves  bound  to  receive  them  as  "the 
epiftles  of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  King  Agba- 
rus," becaufe   Eufebius  was  too   haftily 
led  into  this  opinion  of  them  ?  No;  but, 
notwithftanding  the  learning,  the  judg- 
ment, the  integrity  of  Eufebius,  and  his 
liearnefs  to  the  primitive  times,  they  are 
fo  free  with   him  as  to  think,   he   was 
credulous  in  efteeming   ««  thefe  letters" 

genuine  $ 


242 


IGNATIUS. 


genuine  ;  and  that  he  did  it  without  fuf- 
ficient  caution  and  enquiry.  Even  Arch- 
Bifhop  Wake  has  very  plainly  fignified 
this  to  have  been  his  opinion.      Says  he, 

*  m  NataKs  Alexander  delivers  this  con- 
"  clufion  ;  the  "  epiftle  of  Agbarus''  to 
"  our  Savior,  and  "  his  anfwer"  to  it,  are 
"  fuppofititious,  and  apocryphal  :  and, 
m  at   large,   anfwers   all   that  is  ufually 

*  ui'ged  in  favor  of  them.  And  Du- 
"  pin,  after  him,  yet  more  folidly  con- 
*'  vinces  of  fuch  manifeft  errors,  as  may 
c<  ferve  to  fatisfy  all  confidering  perfons, 
"  that  Enfebius  and  Ephrasem  were  too 
"  eafy  of  belief  in  this  particular  ;  and 
#<  did  not  fufficiently  examine  into  it, 
"  when  they  delivered  that  as  a  certain 
<c  truth,  which,  from  feveral  circum- 
"  fiances,  appears  to  have  been  evidently 
u  otherwife."  Now,  from  this  inftance* 
produced  from  Eufebius,  the  arguing  is* 
both  natural  and  forcible.  If  he  might 
be  miftaken  in  his  opinion  about  u  thefe 
letters,"  he  might  alfo  be  miftaken  in  his 
opinion  about  the  "  Ignatian  epiftles." 
If  he  was  too  creduloufly  betrayed  into 
a  belief  of  the  genuinenefs  of    "  thefe 

letters," 

*  "  Apaftol.  Fathers"  p.  03, 


IGNATIUS.     243 

letters,"  which  are  moft  palpably  fpurious, 
he  might  alfo  too  credoloufly  come  into 
the  belief  of  the  genuinenefs  of  the"  epif- 
ties  of  Ignatius."  If,  with  refpect  to 
"  thefe  letters,"  he  was  too  inattentive, 
not  fufficiently  fufpicious,  too  thought- 
lefs  of  being  impofed  upon  by  religious 
fraud,  this  might  alfo  have  been  the  caie 
with  refpe<5fc  to  the  "  epiftles"  in  difpute. 
Nor  if  the  learned  world  do,  without  any 
difficulty,  reject  "  thefe  letters"  as  fpuri- 
ous,  in  contradiflion  to  the  judgment  of 
Eufebius,  ought  it  to  be  objected  as  a 
difficulty  in  the  way  of  rejecting  "  Ig- 
nanus's  epiftles,"  that  herein  Eufebius's 
judgment  is  oppofed  :  nor  can  this  be 
urged  as  a  difficulty  without  evident  par- 
tiality. For,  in  the  inftance  we  have 
mentioned,  no  [difficulty  is  pretended  ; 
but  the  whole  body  of  writers,  both  Ro- 
mifh  and  Proteftant  (a  few  only  excepted) 
reject  "  thefe  letters"  as  a  fraudulent  im- 
pofition  upon  the  world,  without  making 
any  compliment  to  the  great  Eufebius 
for  their  oppofition  to  him  in  this  matter. 

,  But,  befides  what  has  been  offered, 
Eufebius  has,  in  the  cafe  before  us,  re- 
prefented  the  evidence  upon  which  he 

received 


*44 


IGNATIUS. 


received  thefe  "  epiftles  y  which,  if  de- 
ficient, we  have  plainly  no  reafon    to  be 
moved    by  his   judgment  :    and  that  it 
really  is  fo  we  before  proved,  when  the 
teftimonies  of  Polycarp  and  Irenaeus  were 
confidered,thetwo  only  ones  he  has  men- 
tioned in  fupport  of  the  credit  of  "  thefe 
epiftles."     It  may,  perhaps,  be  thought 
ftrange,  that  Eufebius  (hould  judge,  from 
the  teftimonies  of  Polycarp  and  Irenaeus, 
that  Ignatius  wrote  "  thefe  epiftles,"  if 
what  they    fay,  be,   as    we  have  already 
endeavored  to  evince,  inefficient  for  the 
purpofe.      But,  why  might  not  Eufebius 
make  more  of  thefe  teftimonies  than  they 
really  contained,and  argue  too  much  from 
them,   as  others  have  done  fince  ?   And 
that  he  has   fo  done   (whether   "  thefe 
epiftles"  are  true  or  falfe)  is  too  evident 
to  be  called  in  queftion  ;  as  appears  from 
what  has  been  before  offered  upon  this 
head.      For,  let  it  be  obferved,  he  intro- 
duces Irenaeus  fpeaking  upon  the  matter 
after  this  manner,  "  and  Irenaeus  remem- 
bered  his  epistles,  writing   thus,    be- 
caufe  I  am  the   wheat  of  God" — Thefe 
words  are  to  be  found  no  where  in  the 
writings  of  Ignatius,  but  in  the  "  epiftje 
to  the  Romans ;"  nor  does  Irenaeus  any- 
where; 


IGNATIUS, 


245 


where  elfe  mention  any  writing  of  Igna- 
tius, or  refer  to  any  paflage  in  his  fuppo- 
fed  works.  So  tkat  the  utmoft  that  can 
be  colle&ed,  in  point  of  argument,  from 
thefe  words  is,  that  "  the  epiftle  to  the 
Romans"  was  commemorated  by  Ire- 
naeus.  But  the  conclufion,  which  Eufe- 
bius  draws,  refpefts  the  "  epiftles  in  ge- 
neral -"  which  is  certainly  an  inftance  of 
inattention  to  the  juft  import  of  the 
words  he  argues  from.  He  goes  on, 
y  and  Polycarp  maketh  mention  hereof, 
in  his  epiftle  to  the  Phiiippians,  writing 
thus, — the  epiftle  of  Ignatius  which  he  fent 
to  us>  and  as  many  other  epiftles"— -\t  is 
far  from  being  evident,  as  has  been  abun- 
dantly proved  already,  that  Polycarp  here 
mentions  any  more  than  two  epistles 
of  Ignatius  ;  and  yet,  the  words  are 
brought  in  evidence  of  the  epistles 
without  limitation  ;  which  is  ano- 
ther inftance  of  a  curfory  confideratioa 
only  of  this  paffage.  Had  he  been  fuf- 
ficiently  cautious,  he  might  have  feen  rea- 
fon  to  fufped,  whether  this  teftimony  was 
at  all  Polycarp's. — The  true  ftate  of  the 
cafe  feems  to  have  beea  this  4 — There 
were  extant,  in  the  days  of  Eufebius, 
fl  epiftles  under  the  name  of  Ignatius  to 

feveral 


246     IGNATIUS. 

feveral  famous  churches  $"  and,  meet-, 
ing  with  a  paflage  in  Polycarp's  letter, 
that  made  mention  of  "  epiftles  of  Ig- 
natius," and  another  in  Irenaeus,  citing 
words  that  are  to  be  found  in  one  of 
V  thefe  epiftles,"  he  haftily  concluded, 
without  more  ado,  that  Ignatius  wrote 
all  the  epistles  he  had  feen  under 
his  name  :  whereas,  if  he  had  thoroughly- 
examined  the  matter,he  would  have  found 
thefe  teftimonies  too  weak  to  fupport  the 
conclufion  he  makes  from  them  ;  as  they 
moft  certainly  are,  whatever  is  the  truth 
as  touching  "  theie  epiftles."  . 

I  shall  only  add,  that  Eufebius  feems 
not  to  have  been  without  fome  biafs  up- 
on his  mind,  in  favor  of  the  "  Ignatiaa 
epiftles. "  For  it  is  a  plain  cafe,  the  fi- 
lence  of  the  ancients,  refpeding  particu- 
lar writings,  is,  with  him,  an  argument 
much  weakening  the  credit  of  them.  The 
VL  fecond  epiftle  of  Clement"  he  efteems, 
if  not  fuppofititious,  at  leaft  "  kfs  fa- 
mous, and  kfs  worthy  of  notice,"  be- 
caufe  "  no  teftimonies  are  alleged  for 
it  by  the  Elders."  And  the  "  dialogues 
of  Peter  and  Apion"  he  looks  upon  as 
plainly  fpurious,  for  this,  among  other 

reaionsj 


IGNATIUS.     247 

reafons,  "  that  nr>ne  of  the  Elders  pave 
mentioned  it."  Bur*  in  the  prefent  in- 
ftance,  though,  as  we  have  kcn9  there  is 
a  moft  furpnzmg  fiience  in  primitive  an- 
tiquity about  any  writings  of  Ignatius, 
yet  he  takes  no  notice  at  all  of  it ;  but 
receives  the  "  epiftles"  extant  in  his  day, 
under  the  name  of  "  this  Father,"  with- 
out the  leaft  hefitation,  and  by  the  lump 
too.  And  if  Mr.  Whifton's  reafoning 
may  be  thought  valid,  a  good  account 
may  be  given  of  this  matter.  According 
to  him,  the  "  epiftles  of  Ignatius,"  ex- 
tant in  the  days  of  Eufebius,  were  the 
larger  ones,  that  is,  thefe  epiftles  as 
we  have  them  in  the  editions  before  thofs 
of  Uftier  and  Voffius.  As  to  the  shor- 
ter epistles,"  that  is,  thofe  we  have 
in  the  editions  of  thefe  learned  antiqua- 
ries, he  fpeaks  of  them  as  the  larger 
epistles  arbitrarily  mangled  and  cur- 
tailed. And  his  arguments,  upon  this 
head,  appear  to  me,  I  freely  confefs,  to 
be  exceeding  weighty  :  nor  do  I  think, 
they  ever  have  been,  or  can  be,  fully  an- 
swered. And  fhould  this*  be  the  truth, 
there  isno  great  difficulty  infuppofing,thar 
Eufebius  might  be  inclined  to  think  as 
well  of  them  as  might  be.  For,  as  he 
K  k  and 


248     IGNATIUS. 

and  Whifton  were  nearly  of  the  fame 
fentiments,  relative  to  animportant  point 
of  Chriftran  doctrine,  it  was  but  natural 
for  him  to  be  well  affefted  to  "  thefe 
epiftles,"  which  are  well  known  to  look 
with  a  favorable  eye  on  this  diftinguifli- 
ing  tenet  of  their's.  So  that,  upon  the 
whole,  it  is  but  reafonable  we  fhonld  be 
left  fairly  to  judge  of  the  evidence  in  fa- 
vor, or  dif- favor,  of  "  thefe  epiftles,9' 
withoutbeingatalifwayed  by  the  judgment 
of  Eufebius  :  nor  ought  it  to  be  looked 
upon  as  an  objection  of  any  weight  againft 
our  rejecting  them,  that  that  learned  au- 
thor thought  them  genuine  -,  provided 
we  have  good  reafon  lo  to  do. 

I  will  not  take  upon  me  to  fay,  that 
Ignatius  did  not  write  "  epiftles"  that 
were  feen  by  Eufebius  ;  but  thus  much 
I  will  venture  to  fay,  that  it  is  highly  pro- 
bable, moft  unprejudiced  perfons,  in  con- 
fequence  of  what  has  been  offered,  will 
be  ftrongly  inclined  to  queftion,  whether 
they  were  fo  certainly  his,  as  to  leave  no 
reafonable  room  for  doubt  in  the  cafe.— - 
But  I  mull  now  go  on, 


IGNATIU    S 


-49 


To  offer  what  may  be  thought  necef- 
fary  to  fhow,  that  "  thefe  epiftles,"  if  not 
fpurious,  have  yet  been  corrupted  to  a  de- 
degree  that  unfits  them  to  be  appealed  to, 
as  exhibiting  the  real  mind  of  Ignatius  ; 
efpecially  with  refpetl  to  Epifcopacy,  the 
point  now  under  debate. 

What  I  here  propofe  to  confider, 
meerly  as  interlarded  corruption,  is  made 
ufe  of  by  Daille,  La'roque,  and  other 
learned  writers,  to  prove,  from  the  in- 
ternal contents  of  "  thefe  epiftles" 
themielves,  that  they  were  not  wrote  by 
Ignatius,  but  by  fome  later  hand.  And 
it  muft  be  acknowledged,  the  external 
evidence  in  proof,  that  Ignatius  did  not 
write  "  thefe  epiftles,"  if  confidered  in 
connexion  with  this  internal  evi- 
dence, will  give  great  additional  force  to 
the  argument,  and  leave  fcarce  any  room 
for  doubt  in  the  cafe.— ^But  I  chufe  to 
give  the  Epifcopalians  all  the  advantage 
they  can  defire  j  and  fhall  therefore  here 
argue  upon  the  fuppofition,  that  Igna- 
tius really  wrote  "  epiftles"  that  were 
extant  in  the  days  of  Eufebius  :  but, 
even  upon  this  fuppofition,  we  claim  to 
be  excufed  from  placing  any  manner  of 

dependant 


2$o     I    G   N   A   T   I    U    S. 

dependance  upon  what  they/fay,  efpeci- 
ally  upon  the  head  of  EpHcopacy  ,  and 
for  this  very  good  reafon,  becaule  we  af- 
firm, and  fhall  prove,  that  they  are  fo 
mingled  with  corruption,  as  not  to  con- 
vey the  mind  of  the  truly  venerable  Ig- 
natius. 

Some,  perhaps,  may  think  it  owing  to 
prejudice,  when  it  is  fo  much  as  infi- 
nuated,  as  if  there  were  any  corrupt  mix- 
tures in  fuch  eminently  valuable  "  epif- 
tles"  as  thoie  of  Ignatius.  But  it  ought 
to  be  known,  and  rem  em  be  red,  that  Ig- 
natius has  been  impudently  and  frau- 
dulently dealt  with,  no  iefs  than  eight 
of  the  fifteen  epiftles,  that  bear  his  name, 
being  forgeries,  and  owned  to  be  fo  ; 
beiides  which,  it  is  true  likewife,  and  ac- 
knowledged as  the  trath»  even  by  Biihop 
Pearfon  himfelf,  the  great  advocate  for 
Ignatius,  that  the  other  ?'  kven  epif- 
tles,"  in  all  the  editions  of  them,  befoie 
Uftier  and  Voilius,  were  fo  corrupted 
by  fonie  knavifh  interpolator  or  other, 
as  that  they  ought  not  to  be  depended  on 
as  exhibiting,  the  real  mind  of  the  true 
Ignatius,  It  is  not  argued  from  hence* 
t  the   Uftierian  and  Voffian  editions 

muft 


IGNATIUS.     25! 

muft  needs  be  corrupted  alfo  ;  but  thus 
much  is  obvioufly,  and  certainly  dedu- 
cible  herefrom,  that  they  may  be  fo  ; 
that  to  fuppofe  fuch  a  thing  is  no  indica- 
tion of  prejudice  againft  them,  as  it  is  no 
more  than  has  been  a&ually  done,  with 
refpedl  to  thefe  very  "  epiftles,"  in  for- 
mer editions. 

Much  might  eafily  be  offered  in  fup- 
port  of  the  affirmation,  that  the  "  epiftles 
of  Ignatius/'  in  their  lateft,  beft,  and 
moft  purged  editions,  are  too  much  mix- 
ed with  interpolated  corruption  to  be  de- 
pended on,  as  letting  us  into  his  true  and 
real  /entiments.  I  might  particularly 
confider  the  "  infcriptions"  to  thefe  epif- 
tles ;  all  which  carry  with  them  this  fhrewd 
mark  of  time,  later  than  the  days  of 
Ignatius,  their  fpeaking  of  him  in  the 
ftile  of  Theophoros,  an  epithet  never 
applied  to  him,  until  ages  after  his 
death.—- 1  might  take  notice  of  the  fto- 
ry  of  Ignatius's  being  "  carried  in  bonds, 
from  Syria  to  Rome,  to  be  thrown  to  wild 
beafts,"  on  the  truth  of  which  his  epif- 
tles intirely  depend  -,  and  yet,  the  ftory 
is  in  itfelf  a  very  ftrange  and  unaccoun- 
table one,   and  fo  efteemed  by  many  of 

the 


25s     IGNATIUS. 

the  mod  learned  writers.-— I  might  infift 
upon   what  is  faid  of  the   ik  word's  pro- 
ceeding from  Sige"  a  term  of  art  in   the 
Valentuiian  theology,     not  known    to  be 
ufed  as  fuch,  until  after  the  departure  of 
Ignatius  out  of  our  world.— -In  a  word, 
I  might  bring  to  view  a  great  number  of 
paffages,  which  it  would  be  a  difhonor  to 
Ignatius  to  afcribe  to  him,  they  are  either 
fo  weak,  or  abfurd,  or  ridiculous,  or  in- 
confiftent    with  what   he    has  elfewhere 
faid,  and  fometimes  in  the  fame  epiftle. — 
But  it  would  be  too  great,  as  well  as  need- 
iefs,  a   tryal  of  the  reader's  patience  to 
confider  fo  many  articles.     I  (hall  there- 
fore pafs  them  over,  and   wholly  confine 
myfelf  to  what,  more  efpecially,  relates  to 
the  prefent   controverfy,  the  things    that 
are  faid  concerning  the  officers  of  the 
Christian  church.     And  I  the  rather 
chufe  to  enlarge   upon  this  head,  as  it  is 
enlarged   upon   in    all   the   "  Ignatian 
epifties"  (the  epiftle   to  the  Romans  on- 
ly excepted,)  and  in  a  manner  evidently 
ihewing,  if  thefe  *  epifties"  are  not  fpu- 
rious,  that  they  have  been  tampered  with, 
and  bafely  corrupted  by  fome  over-heat- 
ed zealot  for   ecclefiaftical  dignity,   and 
power,  fo  as  to  be  unfitted  to  hand  to  us 

the 


IGNATIUS.     253 

the  true  fentiments  of  the  real  Ignatius. 
And  here  it  may  be  offered  as  follows. 

Considering  the  circumftances  of 
Ignatius,  when  he  is  faid  to  have  wrote 
thefe  epiftles  ^ — his  being  a  prifoner  of 
death,  and  on  his  journey  to  Rome  to 
fuffer  martyrdom,  it  is  not  at  all  proba- 
ble, 'he  fhould  have  his  heart  fo  fet  on 
exalting  the  Clergy,  as,  in  all  his  epiftles, 
to  write,  as  if  the  main  thing  fuitable  to 
be  told  the  churches,  was,  that  they  had 
"  worthy  and  God-becoming  Bifhops  and 
Prefbyters,  whom  they  ought  to  honor, 
and  obey,  even  as  Jefus  Chrift  honored 
and  obeyed  the  Father/'  There  is  evi- 
dently more,  much  more,  faid,  in  thefe 
epiftles,  upon  the  rights  of  the  Clergy, 
and  the  fubje&ion  that  was  due  to  them, 
than  upon  any  other  fubjedl,  though  of 

fundamental    importance. Does    not 

this  appear  ftrange  ?  It  would  certainly 
do  fo  in  any  epiftles  wrote,at  prefent,  un- 
der like  circumftances.  And  what  makes 
the  matter  ftill  more  extraordinary,  the 
fame  words  and  phrafes,  upon  the  fame 
beloved  fubject,  not  only  come  over  in 
every  epiftle,  fave  one  ;  but  in  moft  of 
them,  they  are  needleflly  repeated  j  and, 

in 


254     IGNATIUS. 

in  fome  of  them,  their  repetition  over 
and  over  again  is  quite  fulfome.  To  this 
it  is  faid  by  Episcopalians, 

That  herefies  now  began  to  be  broa- 
ched, and  to  infe6l  the  minds  of  many  ; 
and  therefore,  as  the  moft  proper  expe- 
dient that  could,  at  that  timo|  be  thought 
on,  to  preferve  the  churches  pure,  Ig- 
natius exhorts*  them,  and  with  preffing 
earneftnefs,  to  an  adherence  to  the  Cler- 
gy, union  with,  and  fubjection  to,  their 
Bifhops  and  Prefbyters.  And  his  fo 
zealoufly,  and  frequently,  infilling  upon 
this  head,  is  made  even  a  fign  of  his  foul's 
flaming  with  love  to  the  churches  5  difco- 
vered  in  ardent  defires  that  they  might 
flourifh  in  peace,  truth,  and  holinefs,  af- 
ter he  had  been  devoured  by   wild  beafts. 

In  anfwer  whereto, 

# 

I  would  not  go  about  to  detra6f,  m 
the  leaf!:,  from  the  piety  of  Ignatius,  his 
concern  for  the  purity  of  the  churches, 
and  defire  to  preferve  them  from  herefy  : 
but,  at  the  fame  time,  cannot  but  think 
it  very  wonderful,  if  "  fubjeftion  to 
church-governors"  an  implicit  adher- 
ence to  the  «  Bifhop  and  his   Clergy/* 

was 


IGNATIUS. 


255 


iuch  a  notable  expedient,  fo  fare  and  ef- 
fectual an  one,  to  guard  agaiaft  herefy, 
that  none  of  the  Fathers  Contemporary 
with  Ignatius  fhuuld  be  fo  happy  as  to 
hit  upon  it.  It  was  as  good  an  expedi- 
ent to  cure  divifions,  as  to  fecure  from, 
herefy  ;  and  yet,  Clement  of  Rome  makes 
no  mention  at  all  of  it  to  the  church  of 
Corinth,  when  he  wrote  to  them  as  rent 
with  ftrife  and  fcifm.  And  it  is  obferva- 
ble,  Polycarp,  who  wrote  juft  after  Igna- 
tius, and  with  his  "  epiftles"  in  keeping 
(as  is  pretended),  among  other  things, 
cautions  the  church  at  Philippi  againft 
the  errors  that  then  prevailed  among 
many.  But  how  does  he  prefs  the  ex- 
hortation ?  Why,  not  a  word  does  he 
lifp  about  their  adhering  to  their  Bifoop, 
with  the  reft  of  the  Clergy,  the  great  ar- 
gument here  faid  to  be  ufed  by  Ignatius  : 
but  he  befpeaka  them  in  thefe  words, 
"  Thefe  things,  my  brethren,  I  took  not 
the    liberty    of    myfelf    to    write    unto 

you. For    neither   I,    nor  any    other 

fuch  as  I  am,  come  up  to  the  wif- 
dom  of  the  blefled  and  renowned  Paul, 
who,  being  himfelf  in  perfon  with  thofe 
that  then  lived,  did,  with  exactnefs  and 
foundnefs,  teach  the  word  of  truth  ;  and 
L  1  being 


256     IGNATIUS, 

being  gone  from  you  wrote  an  epiftle  t© 
you,  into  which  if  you  look,  you  will  be 
able  to  edify  yourfelves  in  the  faith  that 
hath  been  delivered  to  you,  which  is  the 
mother  of  us  all. "—And  a  little  onwards, 
"  Wherefore,  leaving  the  vanity  of  many, 
and  their  falfe  doctrines,  let  us  return  to 
the  word  that  was  delivered  to  us  from 
the  beginning."  If  Ignatius  had  been 
as  particular,  and  full,  in  recommending 
an  adherence  to  the  scripture,  an  obe- 
dience to  the  apostolic  writings,  as 
he  is  in  urging  an  adherence  to  the  Cler- 
gy, and  subjection  to  them,  it  might, 
poflibly,  have  been  as  good  a  guard 
againft  "  infedion  byherefy."  Hedoes^ 
indeed,  fometimes  exhorts  thofe  he  writes 
to,  "  to  ftudy  to  be  confirmed  in  the 
doctrine  of  our  Lord,  and  his  Apoftles  " 
but  where  he  once  advifes  to  this,  I  will 
venture  to  fay,  he  ten  times  preffes  a 
regard  to  the  Clergy  ;  and  this  he  does 
in  very  unguarded  language,  -without 
ever  making  the  fuppofition,that  they  alfo 
might  becorrupted  with  error;  and,  in  this 
cafe,  cautioning  the  churches  againft 
being  ledafide  by  their  governors  :  which 
is  making  much  more  of  the  Clergy,  than 
the  Apoftles  ever  made  of  themielves.-*- 

But 


IGNATIUS.     257 

But  I  fhall  not  enlarge  here,  having  men- 
tioned what  has  been  offered  as  a  fmall 
circumftance  only,  in  companion  with 
what  I  have  yet  to  fay.  To  go  on  there- 
fore, 

It  is  of  more  weighty  consideration, 
that  the  officers  of  the  chriftian  church 
are  commonly  fpoken  of,in  "thefeepiftles," 
in  language  not  at  all  confonant  to  the 
age  in  which  the  true  Ignatius  lived, 
nor  indeed  in  the  leaft  worthy  of  fo  fa- 
mous and  primitive  a  Father  and  martyr. 
What  other  thought  can  reafonably  be 
entertained  of  thofe  paffages,  in  which 
Bifhops  are  reprefented  as  "  prefiding  in 
the  place  of  God  :"  In  which  they  are 
compared  to  "  God  the  Father,  to  Jefus 
Chrift  the  Son  of  the  Father  :"  in  which 
the  churches  are  taught  it  to  be  their 
duty  "  to  receive  them  as  the  Lord,  to 
reverence  them  as  Jefus  Chrift  ;"  yea, 
•«  to  follow  them  as  Chrift  does  the  Fa- 
ther :"  in  which  they  are  commanded 
"  fo  to  obey  and  fubjedt  themfelves  to 
the  Bifhop  as  to  do  nothing  without  him, 
however  reafonable  it  might  appear  to 
them  :"  in  which  they  are  exhorted  to  be 
*'  fo  one  with  the  Bifhop,  as  Chrift  is 

one 


258     IGNATIUS. 

ore  with  the  Father  "  and  "  fo  to  do 
nothing  without  him,  as  (Thrift  did  no- 
thing without  the  Father  :"  in  which  fo 
great  account  is  made  of  obedience  and 
fubjeclion  to  the  Bifhop,  that  they  that 
*c  do  any  thing  without  him"  are  efteem- 
ed  "  doing  the  devil  a  fervice  ;"  and  ihofe 
that  remain  with  him"  are,  upon  this  ac- 
count only,  thought  worthy  of  the  cha- 
racter of  "  belonging  to  Chrift  •"  and 
are  reprefented  as  "  walking  not  as  men, 
but  according  to  Chrift  :"  yea,  in  which 
obedience  to  the  officers  of  the  church  is 
fo  highly  estimated  by  the  writer,  or  in- 
terpolator, of  "  thefe  epiftles,"  that  he 
even  "  pawns  his  foul  for  thofe  that  obey 
the  Bifhop,  Prefbyters,  and  Deacons  -3 
and  defires  his  portion  in  God  may  be 
with  fuch." 

These,  and  like  expreffions,  to  be  met 
with  in  M  thefe  epiftles,"  are  not  eafijy  to 
be  accounted  fof%  upon  the  iuppofition 
fhut  they  have  not  beet]  interlaced  with 
corruption.  In  their  literal  and  moft 
obvious  fenfe,  they  are  unworthy  of  any 
pious  writer ;  much  more  of  fo  venera- 
ble a  Father,  and  illuftrious  a  martyr,  as 
Ignatius  :  nor  can  it   be  difowned,   that, 

in 


IGNATIUS.     259 

in  this  fenfe,  they  exalt  the  Clergy  be- 
yond all  reafonable  bounds,  claiming  for 
them  the  moft  abfplutely  blind  obedi- 
ence :  and  fbould  we  qualify  their  fenfe, 
to  the  utmoft  extent  they  are  capable  of, 
they  carry  the  dignity  and  power  of  Bi- 
fhops  and  Prefbyters,  and  the  iubje&ion 
due  to  them,  not  only  far  above  their 
deferts,  but  fo  as  to  difcover  the  true 
spirit  of  after-times,  and  not  that 
in  which  Ignatius  is  known  to  have 
lived. 

It  may,  with  the  exa&eft  truth,  be  affir- 
med, that  none  of  the  writers,  in  the  days  of 
Ignatius,  or  near  the  age  in  which  he 
flourifhed,  do  bear  the  leaft  likenefs'  to 
him  in  his  mode  of  fpeaking,  relative  to 
the  officers  of  the  church.  Thefe  unite, 
as  one,  in  language  becoming  the  fimpli- 
city  of  the  gofpel,  and  the  purity  and  hu- 
mility of  thofe  primitive  times  :  where- 
as, the  general  ftrain  of  "Ignatius's  epif- 
tles"  is  evidently  adapted,  I  may  fay,  pur- 
pofely  contrived,  to  aggrandife  the  Clergy, 
and  befpeak  for  them  the  higheft  rever- 
ence, honor,  and  fubmiffion.  How  can 
this  be  accounted  for,  without  the  fup- 
pofuion  of  fome  medling  interpolator  ? 

Why, 


26o     IGNATIUS. 

Why,  otherwife,  fhould  there  be  fuch  a 
fignal  difference  between  his  manner  of 
writing,  and  that  of  all.  the  ancients  in 
his  day,  and  for  a  long  time  after  [lis 
life  had  come  to  a  period  here  on  earth  i 

The  difference    of  ftile,   in   different 
writers,  will  not,   as  is  pleaded  here,  ac- 
count for  this.    The  ftile  of  Hermas  wide- 
ly differs  from  that  of  Clement,  as  Cle- 
ment's does   from  that  of  Polycarp,  and 
Polycarp's  from    that  of  Juftin   iMartyr, 
and  Irenseus  ;  and  yet,    they  all  lead  us 
to  think  much  the  lame  thing  about  the 
Clergy  ;  and  this,  with  all  defirable  clear- 
nefs  and  certainty,  though  they  feverally 
exprefs  themfelves  in  a  manner  peculiar 
each  one  to  himielf.      And  why   might 
not  Ignatius  have  wrote  in  his  own  ftile, 
and  yet  have  concurred  with  his  contem- 
poraries, in  a  like  account  of  the  officers 
of  the  church  ?  It  ought,  moft  certainly, 
to  be  afcribed,  not  to  meer  difference  in 
ftile,  but  to  fome  other  caufe,  that  he  fo 
ftrangely  differs  from  them.     And  what 
caufe   can  this  be,    but  the  interlarding 
hand  of  fome  zealot  for  clerical  power 
and  honor  ? 


IGNATIUS.       261 

His  being  a  Syrian  may,  poffibly, 
account  for  his  fomctimes  barbarous 
Greek,  as  well  as  high-founding  com- 
pounded words,  *  peculiar  to  himfelf  ; 
but  it  will,  by  no  means,  account  for  his 
fentiments  concerning  the  Clergy,  as 
differing  from  thofe  of  all  his  contem- 
poraries. For  not  only  the  mode  of 
language  in  "  thefe  epiftles,"  but  the  idea 
conveyed  by  it,  is  quite  different  from 
that  which  is  contained  in  the  "  other 
writings''  in,,  and  near,  the  fame  age. 
Bring  down  the  high  (trains  ufed  in  "  thefe 
epiftles,"  and  put  them  into  plain  fimple 
language,  ftill  keeping  to  their  true  fpirit, 
and  genuine  intendment ;  and  they  will 
carry  the  power  of  the  Clergy,  and  the 
reverence   and  honor   due  to  them,   far 

beyond 


* 


No  writer  was  ever  more  pleafed  with  Compounding 
words  to  make  them  look  big  with  meaning,  than, 
Ignatius.  Thofe  he  could  join  with  Phoros  in  the 
end,  and  A  x  i  o  s  in  the  beginning,  are  particularly  ob- 
fervable  in  his  "  epiftles."  He  fpeaks  of  one,  or 
another  of  the  churches  he  writes  to,  as  Th  eo  pho  ro  I, 
Naophoroi,  Agiophoroi,  Christophoroi, 
Pneumatophoroi,  &c.    The  words  alfo,  a:  10- 

THEOS,  AXIOMAKARISTOS,  A  X  I O  N  O  M  ASTOS,  AX- 

IOGApeetos,  axiothaum astos,  &c.  are  favo- 
rite  compounds  of  his  making.  Arch-Bifhop  Wake  fel- 
dom  tranflates  thefe,  and  fuch  like  words,  f©  as  that  the 
original  Greek  could  from  thence  be  fo  much  as  guef- 
fed'  at. 


262     IGNATIUS. 

beyond  what  it  is  carried,  either  in  the 
fcripture,  or  the  writings  of  all  contem- 
porary Fathers  united  together  :  nor  can 
a  perfon  read  the  "  epiftles  of  Ignatius/' 
and  not  have  excited  in  his  mind  a  much 
more  exalted  idea,  both  of  Bifhops  and 
Prefbyters,  than  by  reading  all  the  other 
writers,  within  the  two  firft  centuries. 
Any  common  reader,  by  going  over  the 
collection  of  teftimonies  brought  to  view, 
in  this  volume,  may,  with  his  own  eyes, 
fee  this  to  be  the  truth  of  faft. 

Let  the  difpute  about  the  fuperiority 
of  Bifhops  to  Prelbyters  be  as  it  may,  no- 
thing is  more  evident,  than  that  the  lan- 
guage relative  to  the  Clergy,  befpeaking 
for  them  reverence  and  fubjection,  was 
quite  different  after  the  fecond  century, 
from  what  it  was  before.  And  as  the 
language,  in  the  "  Ignatian  epiftles,"  up- 
on this  head,  is  fo  unlike  that  of  the  age 
in  which  he  lived,  and  agrees  fo  well  with 
that,  which  was,  in  fact,  ufed  afterwards, 
it  is  a  lure  mark  of  unfair  dealing  fome- 
how  or  other.  Either  Ignatius  was  not 
the  writer  of"  thefe  epiftles,"  or  they  have 
been  bafely  and  fraudulently  corrupted, 
fince  his  death.     No  one,  unbiased  in  his 

mind, 


IGNATIUS.     263 

mine],  can,  I  fhould  think,  be  at  any  lofs 
to  determine  thus.-— To  proceed, 

It  is  moft  of  all  worthy  of  con  {itera- 
tion, that  the  words.  Bishop  and  Pres- 
byter, are,  in  the  Ignatian  epiftles,  ap- 
propriated  terms  ;  not  ufed  promis- 
cuously,  but  in  a  distinctive  fenfe. 
Bifhops  are  never  here  called  Prefbyters  5 
nor,  on  the  other  hand,  are  Prefbyters  ever 
called  Bifhops.      The  mode  of  di&ion  is 
this  ;  "  Being  fubject  to  your  Bifhop, 
and   the  Prefbytery." — "  Obeying  your 
Bifhop,  and  the  Prefbytery,  with  an  in- 
tire  affe&ion."— "Seeing  I  have  been  judg- 
ed worthy  to  fee  you  by  Damas,  your  Bi- 
fhop ;    and  by  your  worthy  Prefbyters, 
Bafiusand  Apollonius".— "  In   whom   I 
rejoice,  for  that  he  is  fubjedt  unto  his  Bi- 
fhop, as  to  the  grace  of  God  ;  and  to  the 
Prefbytery,  as  to  the  law  of  JefusChrifl."-- 
"He  that  does  any  thing  without  the  Bi- 
fhop, and  Prefbyters  is   not  pure  in  his 
confeience."— "  Being   fubjedt  to   your 
Bifhop,  as  to  the  command  of  God  ;  and 
fo  likewife  to  the  Prefbytery."— "  I  ciicd, 
whilft  I  was  among  you,  I  lpake  with  a 
loud  voice,  attend  to  the  Bifhop,  and  to 
the  Prefbytery."™"  See  thai  ye  all  fol- 
M  m  low 


264     IGNATIUS. 

low  your  Bifhop,  as  Jefus  Chrift  the  Fa- 
ther ;  and  the  Prefbytery  as  the  Apof- 
ties." — *'  I  falute  your  very  worthy  Bifhop, 
and  your  venerable  Prefbytery/3— You 
obferve,  the  terms  Bifhop  and  Prefbyter, 
arc  ufed,  in  thefe  paffages,  in  the  appro- 
priated fenfe  ;  and  they  are  ufed  in 
the  fame  fenfe  throughout  the  epiftles* 
Nor  can  an  inftance  be  given  to  the  con- 
trary. The  appropriation  of  thefe 
terms  is  not  accidental,  but  defigned;  and 
it  runs  through  all  the  copies  of  thefe 
epiflles,  the  Ufherian  and  Vcffian,  as  well 
as  thofe  that  were  extant  before  them  : 
and  it  is  fo  facred  and  inviolable,  that  it 
is,  in  no  cafe,  at  no  time,  upon  no  occa- 
fion,  departed  from. 

What  agreement,  now,  is  there  be* 
tween  the  fuppofed  Ignatius,  and  his  con- 
temporaries, upon  this  head  ?  Do  they 
tife  the  words,  Bifhop  and  Prefbyter,  as 
he  does,  in  an  appropriated  fixed  fenfe  ? 
It  cannot,  with  any  face  of  truth,  be  af- 
firmed, that  they  do.  Far  from  this,  they 
differ  as  much  from  him,  in  their  ufe  of  \ 
thefe  terms,  as  they  do  from  any  of  the 
writers  of  the  third,  or  fourth  centuries. 
There  is  indeed  no  writer,  either  before 

Ignatius,     l 


IGNATIUS.       z6$ 

Ignatius,  or  at  the  time  when  he  wrote, 
or  even  afterwards  for  more  than  an  hun- 
dred years,  that  ufes  thefe  words  as  he 
does,  in  a  fenfe  fo  certainly,  and  invaria- 
bly, fixed  and  appropriated.  The  rea- 
der is  defired  to  compare  the  pretended 
Ignatius's  mode  ofdiftion,  upon  this  point, 
with  that  which  is  held  out  to  tfiew,  in 
the  prefent  volume,  from  all  the  writers 
until  towards  the  clofe  of  the  fecond  cen- 
tury ;  and  he  may  then,  from  ocular  in- 
fpe&ion,  be  convinced,  that  he  greatly 
differs  from  them  all;  and  eminently  in 
this  refpecl,  that  he  invariably  ufes  the 
words,  Bifhop  and  Prefbyter,  in  the  ap- 
propriated fenfe  ;  while  they  ufe  them 
promifcuoufly,  fometimes  calling  Bifhops, 
Prefbyters  ;  and  fometimes  Prefbyters, 
Bifhops  :  meaning  by  both  terms  one  and 
the  fame  order  of  officers  in  the  church. 
He  will  evidently  fee,  in  "  Hermas's  paf- 
tor,"  that  the  word,  Bifhops,  is  explained 
to  fignify,  "  thofe  that  prefide  in  the 
church  ;"  and  that  thofe  who  prefide  in 
the  church  are  "  the  Prefbyters  of  it." 
He  will  at  once  perceive,  in  "  Clement's 
epiftle  to  the  Corinthians,"  that  the  fame 
officers  who  are  called  "  Prefbyters,"  are 
diredly  fpoken  of  as  u  caft  out  of  their 

Epifcopacy/; 


z66       I   G  N   A   T   I   U   S. 

Epifcopacy."  When  he  turns  to  Poly- 
carp,  the  fuppofed  collector  of  the  "  Ig- 
natian  epiftles,"  and  the  nexi  'and  near- 
eft  writer  to  him,  fo  far  will  he  be  from 
finding  an  analogy  between  "  hs  epif- 
tle,"  and  the  "  epiftles  of  Ignatius/' 
that  he  no  where  fpeaks  of  the  Bifhop 
ofPjiilippi,  or  ofanyothei  church  :nordoes 
he  fo  much  as  mention  the  word,  Bifhop  ; 
which  is  really  unaccountable,  if  it  be  re- 
membered, conformably  to  the  fentiments 
of  Epiicopalians,  that  Ignatius  had  very 
lately,  and  under  the  rnoft  extraordinary 
circumftances  too,  wrote  "  his  epiftles," 
and  that  Polycarp  was  particularly  ac- 
quainted with  them  -,  yea,  ,thar  he  had 
wrote  "  one  epiftle  to  PolyearpP  himfelf, 
and  another  to  "  his  church  at  Smyrna," 
in  one  of  which  he  "  pawns  his  foul 
for  them  that  were  obedient  to  the  Bi- 
fhop, and  the  other  Clergy  5"  and,  in  the 
other,  makes  the  Bifhop  fo  neceifary,  that 
u  no  administration  could  be  valid  with- 
out him,  but  whatever  he  fhould  approve 
would  be  pleafing  to  God."  And  he 
will  be  no  more  able  to  find  in  Juftin 
Martyr,  or  Irenaeus,  an  appropriated 
life  of  the  terms,  Bifhop  and  Prefbyter, 
iaan  in  either  of  the  foregoing  writers, 

Irenasus* 


IGNATIUS.     267 

Irenaeus,  it  is  true,  frequently  ufes  thefe 
terms,  but  in  the  promiscuous  fenfe  ; 
as  no  one  can  be  at  a  lofs  to  perceive,  who 
will  be  at  the  trouble  of  reading  over  the 
teftimonies,  in  this  work,  produced  out 
of  his  writings  :  nor  are  the  wbrds,  Bi- 
fhop  and  Prefbyter,  ufed  as  appropri- 
ated ones,  until  towards  the  clofe  of  the 
fecond  century  ;  and,  even  then,  the  ap- 
propriation was  not  fteadily  fixed. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  chiefly  flou- 
rifhed  in  the  latter  end  of  the  fecond  cen- 
tury, and  the  beginning  of  the  third,  is 
the  firft  writer  who  ufes  the  mode  of 
fpeech,  fo  common,  and  invariable,  with 
Ignatius,  "  Biftiops,  Prefbyters,  and  Dea- 
cons ;  and  yet,  fo  long  after  the  days  of 
Ignatius,  the  diftincl  appropriation 
of  thele  names  was  not  certainly  fixed. 
We  muft  go  into  the  third  century,  I 
may  rather  fay,  beyond  it,  before  the 
appropriation,  after  the  manner  of  Ig* 
nanus,  is  conftant,  facred,  and  invalid 
able. 

Upon  which,  the  enquiry  is  highly  per- 
tinent, how  fhould  Ignatius  conftantly, 
ani  forever,  ufe  the  words,  Bifhop  and 
Prelbyter  not  in  the  fenfe  in  which  they 

were 


^o8     IGNATIUS. 

were  ufed,  in  the  age  in  which  he  wrote  ; 
but  in    thefenie,  in  which  they   were  u- 
fed,  in  other  ages,    long  after  his  death  ? 
This  certainly  looks  fufpicious,and  ought, 
in    all  reafon,   to  put  us  upon  our  guard, 
left  we  fhould  take  fome  jugling  impoftor 
for   the  worthy,  and  primitive   Ignatius. 
Words,  we  know,  often  vary  in  their  fig- 
nification  ;  and   fometimes,  when  ufed  in 
this  or  that  particular  fenfe,  are  as  fure  a 
mark  of  fuch  a  particular  age,  as  the  fpe- 
cial  mode  or  fafhion  of  garments.     And 
this  is   plainly  the  cafe  here.     Before  the 
days   of  Ignatius,   about  the  time  of  his 
living,    and  dying,    and  for  many  years 
after,  the  words,    Bifhop  and  Prefbyter, 
were  not  appropriated  names,  and  as 
fuch  applied    to  different   perfons  ,*    but 
were  indifferently  ufed  to  point  out 
either  Bifhops,   or  Prefbyters  :   whereas, 
towards  the   going  out  of  this   age,    or 
rather  tha  coming  on  of  the  next,  they 
began  to   loofe   their  promiscuous  ufe, 
and   to  become   appropriated    terms, 
conveying  the  idea   of  different  perfons, 
who  were  commonly  known,  and  diftin- 
guifhed,  by  the   application  of  thefe  now 
different  names :   though,  it  ought  to  be 
remembered,  this  appropriation  was  not 

fo 


IGNATIUS,       26  ^ 

fo  sacred  and  inviolable,  as  in  the 
"  epiftles  of  Ignatius",  till  we  have  got 
much  farther  from  the  age  in  which  he 
Jived.  And  we  are  herefrom  prefented 
with  a  criterion,  by  which  we  may  de- 
termine, with  all  defirable  certainty,  ei- 
ther that  Ignatius  did  not  write  the 
"  epiftles"  that  go  under  his  name,  or 
that  they  have  been  bafely,  and  fraudu- 
lently, corrupted  by  fome  bigot  for  cleri- 
cal honor  and  power  ;  infomuch,  that 
there  is  no  knowing  the  real  fentiments 
of  the  true  Ignatius. 


I  have  now,  with  confcious  care  and 
impartiality,  endeavoured  to  exhibit  the 
true  ftate  of  the  "  epiftles"  called  '<  Ig- 
natian  $"  leaving  it  with  the  reader  to 
judge  forhimfelf,  how  far  they  may,  with 
certainty,  be  depended  on  -,  more  especial- 
ly in  the  prefent  debate.  Poffibly,  he 
may  be  difpofed  to  queftibn,  whether 
Ignatius  was  at  all  the  writer  of  the 
€(  epiftles"  that  are  afcribed  to  him  :  or, 
fhould  he  be  inclined  to  think  he  was, 
it  is  fcarce  fuppofable,  but  he  fhould  be 
clearly  fatisfied,  that  fome  fraudulent  hand 
has  made  him  write  in  a  manner  quite 

diffonaut 


*7o     I   G  N  A  T  I.  U    S. 

diflbnant  from  the  times  in  which  he  liv- 
ed ;  and  to  fuch  a  degree,  as  to  unfit  his 
"  epiftles"  to  be  repaired  to,  with  confi- 
dence, in  the  debate  concerning  epifco- 
pacy. 

Testimonies  from  Ignatius 

The  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians. 

Sect.  I~"  I  received  therefore  in  the 
name  of  God  your  whole  multitude 
in  Onefimus  ;  who  by  inexpreffable  love 
18  our's,  but  according  to  the  flefh  is 
your  Bifhop  :  whom  I  befeech  you,  by 
Jeius  Chrift,  to  love  -,  and  that  you  would 
all  ftrive  to  be  like  unto  him.  And  bleffed 
be  God,  who  has  granted  unto  you,  who 
are  fo  worthy  of  him,  to  enjoy  fuch  an 
excellent  Bifhop." 

Sect.  II.  "  For  what  concerns  my 
fellow-fervant  Burrhus,  and  your  moft 
blefled  Deacon  in  things  pertaining  to 
God>  I  intreat  you  that  he  may  tarry  lon- 
ger, both  for  your's,  and  your  Bifhop's 
honor.— It  is  therefore  fitting,-  that  you 
fhould  by  all  means  glorify  Jefus  Chrift, 
who  hath  glorified  you    :    that,  by   a 

uniform 


t   G  N  A  T  t  It    S.       27! 

Uniform  obedience,  "  ye  may  be  perfectly 
joined  together  in  the  fame  mind,  and  in  - 
the  fame  judgment ;  and  may  all  fpeak 
the  fame  things  concerning  every  thing  :'* 
and  that,  being  fubjeft  to  your  Bifhop, 
and  the  Prelbytery,  ye  may  be  wliollyand 
thoroughly  fanetified." 

Sect.  III. —  **  But  forafriiuch  as  cha- 
rity Fuffers  me  not  to  be  filent  towards 
you,  I  have  firft  taken  upon  me  to  exhort 
you,  that  ye  would  all  run  together  ac- 
cording to  the  will  of  God.  For  even 
Jefus  Chrift,  our  infeperable  life,  is  fent 
by  the  will  of  the  Father  ;  as  the  Bifhops, 
appointed  unto  the  utmoft  ends  of  the 
earth,  are  by  the  will  of  Jefus  ChrinV* 
It  immediately  follows, 

Sect.  IV.  u  Wherefore  it  wiU  become* 
you  to  run  together  according  to  the  wilt 
of  your  Bifhop,  as  alfo  ye  do.  For  your 
famous  Prefbytery,  worthy  of  God,  is  fit- 
ted asexa&ly  to  the  Bifhop,  as  the  firing^ 
are  to  the  harp.  Therefore  in  your  con- 
cord, and  agreeing  charity,  Jefus  Chrift  h 
fung  ;  and  every  fingle  perfon  among  you 
makes  up  the  chorus  :  that  fo  being  all 
N  n  confonanS 


722 


IGNATIUS. 


confonanfin  love,  and  taking  up  the  iong 
of  God,  ye  may,  in  a  perfect  unity,  wit'h 
one  voice,  fing  to  the  Father  by  Jefus 
Chriir  ;  to  the  end  that  he  may  both  hear 
you,  and  perceive  by  your  works,  that 
ye  are  indeed  the  members  of  his  Son. 
Wherefore  it  is  profitable  for  you  to  live 
in  an  unblemiihable  unity,  that  foye  may 
always  have  a  fellow  {hip  with  God/' 
The  next  words  are, 

Sect.  V.  <c  For  if  I,  in  this  little  time, 
have  had  fuch  a  familiarity  with  your  Bi- 
fhop,  I  mean  not  a  carnal,  but  fpiritual 
acquaintance  with  him  ;  how  much  more 
mud  I  think  you  happy,who  are  fo  joined 
to  him,  as  the  church  is  to  Jefus  Chrift, 
and  Jefus  Chrift  to  the  Father  ;  that  fo 
all  things  may  agree  in  the  fame  unity. 
Let  no  man  deceive  himfelf;  if  a  man  be 
not  within  the  altar,  he  is  deprived  of  the 
bread  of  God.  For  if  the  prayer  of  one 
or  two  be  of  fuch  force,  as  we  are  told  ; 
how  much  more  powerful  fhall  that  of 
the  Bifhop,  and  the  whole  church  be  ? 
He  therefore  that  does  not  come  together 
into  the  fame  place  with  it,  is  proud  and 
has  already  condemned  himfelf.  For  it 
is  written,  "  God  refifteth  the  proud."  Let 

£3 


IGNATIUS.     273 

us  take  heed  therefore,  "that  we  do  not  fct 
ourfelves  againft  the  Bifhop,  that  we 
may  be  fubject  to  God." 

Sect.  VI.  "  The  more  any  one  fees 
his  Bifhop  filent,  the  more  let  him  revere 
him.  For  whomfoever  the  Mafter  of  the 
houfe  fends  to  be  over  his  own  houfhold, 
we  ought  in  like  manner  to  receive  him, 
as  we  would  do  him  that  fent  him.  It 
is  therefore  evident,that  we  ought  to  look 
upon  the  Bifhop,  even  as  we  would  do 
upon  the  Lord  himfelf."--- 

Sect.  XIII.  "  Let  it  be  your  care  there- 
fore to  come  more  fully  together, 
to  the  praife  and  glory  of  God.  For 
when  ye  meet  fully  together  in  the  fame 
place,  the  powers  of  the  devil  are  deftroy- 
ed,  and  his  mifchief  is  diffolved,  by  the 
unity  of  your  faith." — - 

^  Sect.  XX.  «  But  if  Jefus  Chrift  fliall 
give  me  grace  through  your  prayers, 
and  it  be  his  will,  I  purpofe  in  a  fecond 
epiftle,  which  I  will  fuddenly  write  un- 
to you,  to  manifeft  to  you  more  fully  the 
difpenfation  of  which  I  have  begun  to 
fpeak,  unto  the  new  man,  which  is  Jefus; 

Chrift  i 


S74 


IGNATIUS, 


Chrift  {  both  in  his  faith,  and  charity  5 
in  his  differing,  and  in  his  refurreclion  : 
efpecially  if  the  tord  fhall  make  known 
to  me,  th^t  ye  all  by  name  come  together 
in  common  in  one  faith,  and  in  one  Je- 
jfus  Chrift  ;  who  was  of  the  race  of  Da- 
vid according  to  theflefh,  the  fon  of  man<, 
and  the  Son  of  God  ;  obeying  your  Bi- 
Jhop  and  the  Prefbytery  with  an  entire 
affecYion  ;  breaking  one  and  the  fyrne 
bread3  which  is  the  medicine  of  immor- 
tality ;  our  antidote  that  we  fhould  not 
die,  but  live  forever  in  Chrift  Jefus." 

The  epistle  to  the  Magnesians. 

Sect.  II.  V  Seeing  then,  I  have  been 
Judged  worthy  to  lee  you,  by  Damas 
your  moft  excellent  Bifhop  -,  and  by  your 
worthy  Prefhyters  Baffus,  and  Apolloni- 
us  ;  and  by  my  fellow-fervant  Sotio,  the 
Deacon,  in  whom  I  rejoice  ;  forafmuch 
0s  he  is  fubject  uato  his  Bifhop  as  to 
the  grace  of  God,  and  to  the  Prefbytery 
as  to  the  law  of  Jefus  Chrift  -,  I  deter- 
mined to  write  unto  you." 

Sect.  III.  "  Wherefore  it  will  be- 
come you  alio  not  to  ufe  your  Bifhop  too 
familiarly  upon  the  account  of  his  youth ; 

but 


IGNATIUS,       275 

but  to  yield  all  reverence  to  him  accord- 
ing to  the  power  of  God  the  Father  :  as 
alio  I  perceive,  that  you*  holy  Prefbyters 
do  ;  not  confidering  his  age,  which  in- 
deed to  appearance  is  young  -,  but  as  be- 
comes thofe  who  are  prudent  in  God,fub- 
mitting  to  him,  or  rather  not  to  him,  but 
to  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift, 
the  Bifhop  of  us  all.  It  will  therefore 
become  you,  with  all  iincerity,  to  obey 
your  Bifhop  ;  in  honor  of  him  whofe 
pleafure  it  is  that  ye  fhould  do  fo.  Be- 
caufe  he  that  does  not  do  fo,  deceives  not 
the  Bifhop  -whom  he  fees,  but  affronts 
him  that  is  invifible.  For  whatfbever  of 
this  kind  is  done,  it  refle&s  not  upon 
man,  but  upon  God,  who  knows  the  fe- 
crets  of  our  hearts.'4 

Sect.  IV.  "  It  is  therefore  fitting, 
that  we  fhould  not  only  be  called  Chrif- 
tians,  but  be  fo  :  As  fome  call  indeed 
their  Governor  *  Bifhop  ;  but  yet  do  all 
things  without  him.  But  I  can  never 
think  that  fuch  as  thefe  have  a  good  con- 
fcience,  feeing  they  are  not  gathered 
together  throughly  according  to  God's 
commandment." 

Sect.  VI. 

J  The  words,  printed  in  italic  have  nothing  to  anfwer  then* 
in  the  original. 


*7 


IGNATIUS. 


Sect.  VI.  "  Forafmuch  therefore  as  I 
have,  in  the  perfons  beforementioned,  ken 
all  of  you  in  faith  and  charity  ;  I  exhort 
you  that  ye  ftudy  to  do  all  things  in  di- 
vine concord  ;  your  Bifliop  prefiding  in 
the  place  of  God  ;  your  Prefbyters  in  the 
place  of  the  council  of  the  Apoftles  $ 
and  your  Deacons  rnoft  dear  to  me,  being 
intrufted  with  the  miniftry  of  Jefus  Chrift, 
who  was  with  the  Father  before  all  ages, 
and  appeared  in  the  end  to  us.  Where- 
fore taking  the  lame  holy  courfe,  fee  that 
ye  all  reverence  one  another  :  and  let  no 
one  look  upon  his  neighbor  after  the 
flefh  ;  but  do  ye  all  mutually  love  each 
other  in  Jefus  Chrift.  Let  there  be  no- 
thing that  may  be  able  to  make  a  divi- 
fion  among  you  ;  but  be  ye  united  to 
your  Bifliop,  and  thofe  who  prefide  over 
you,  to  be  your  pattern  and  direction  in 
the  way  to  immortality."  The  next 
words  are, 

Sect.  VII.  "  As  therefore  the  Lord 
did  nothing  without  the  Father,  being 
united  to  him  ;  neither  by  himfelf,  nor 
yet  by  his  Apoftles  ;  fo  neither  do  ye  any 
thing  without  your  Bifliop  and  Prefby- 
ters ;  neither  endeavour  to  let  any  thing 

,  appear 


IGNATIUS.     277 

appear  rational  to  yourfelves  apart ;  but 
being  come  together  into  the  fame  place, 
have  one  common  prayer  ;  one  fupplica- 
tion  ;  one  mind  ;  one  hope,  in  charity, 
and  in  joy  undefiled.  There  is  one  Lord 
Jefus  Chrift,  than  whom  nothing  is  bet- 
ter. Wherefore  come  ye  all  together  as 
unto  one  temple  of  God  ;  as  to  one  al- 
tar; as  to  one  Jefus  Chrift;  who  pro- 
ceeded from  one  Father,  and  exifts  in 
one,  and  is  returned  to  one." 

Sect.  XIII.  "  Study  therefore  to  be 
confirmed  in  the  dofrrine  of  our  Lord, 
and  of  his  Apoftles ;  that  fo  whatfoever 
ye  do  may  profper  : — together  with  your 
mod  worthyBiihop,  and  the  well  wrought 
fpiritual  crown  of  your  Prefbytery,  and 
your  Deacons  which  are  according  to 
God.  Be  fubjeft  to  your  Bifhop,  and 
to  one  another,  as  Jefus  Chrift  to  the  Fa- 
ther according  to  theflefh  ;  and  the  Apof- 
tles both  to  Chrift,  and  to  the  Father, 
and  to  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  that  fo  ye  may 
be  united  both  in  body  and  fpirit." 

Sect.  XV.  "  The  Ephefians  from 
Smyrna  falute  you,  from  which  place  I 
write  to  you — together  with  Polycarp 
the  Bifhop  of  the  Smyrnseans." 

The 


278     IGNATIU   S, 

The  eppstle  to  the   Trallians. 

Sect.  I.  "I  have  heard  of  your  blame- 
lefs  and  conftant  difpofition  through  pa- 
tience, which  not  only  appears  in  your 
outward  converfation,  but  is  naturally 
rooted  and  grounded  in  you  :  in  like  man- 
ner as  Polybius  your  Bifhop  has  declared 
unto  me,  who  came  to  me  to  Smyrna,-— 
and  fo  rejoiced  with  me  in  my  bonds  for 
Jefus  Chrift,  that  in  effeft  I  found  your 
whole  church  in  him*" — 

Sect.  II.  "  For  whereas  ye  are  fub- 
je&  to  your  Bifhop  as  to  Jefus  Chrift,  ye 
appear  to  me  to  live  not  after  the  man- 
ner of  men,  but  according  to  Jefus  Chrift ; 
who  died  for  us,  that  fo  believing  in  his 
death, ye  might  efcape  death.  It  is  there- 
fore  neceffary,  that  as  ye  do,  fo  without 
your  Bifhop,  you  fhould  do,  nothing: 
alfo  be  ye  fubjeft  to  your  Prefbyters,  as 
to  the  Apoftles  of  Jefus  Chrift  our  hope, 
in  whom  if  we  walk,  we  fhallbe  found  in 
him.  The  Deacons  alfo,  as  being  the 
miniftersof  the  myfteries  of  Jefus  Chrift, 
muft  by  all  means  pleafe  all.  For  they 
are  not  the  minifters  of  meat  and  drink, 

b«; 


t   G  N   A   T   I   U   S.       *?9 

but  of  the  church  of  God.  Wherefore 
they  mufi  avoid  all  offences,  as  they 
do  fire." 

Sect.  III.  "In  like  manner,  let  all  re^ 
verence  the  Deacons  as  Jefus  Chrift  5  and 
the  Bifnop  as  the  Father;  and  the  Pref- 
byters  as  the  fanhedrim  of  God,  and  col- 
lege of  the  Apoftles.  Without  thefe 
there  is  no.  church.  Concerning  all 
which  I  am  perfuaded,  that  ye  think  af- 
ter the  fame  manner  ;  for  I  have  received* 
and  even  now  have  with  me,  the  pat- 
tern of  your  love  in  your  Bifhop  :  whofe 
very  look  is  inftructive  ;  and  whofe 
mildnefs  is  powerful :  whom  I  am  per- 
fuaded, the  very  Atheifts  themfelves  can-* 
not  but  reverence"* — •> 

Sect,  VIL  "Wherefore  guard  your- 
felves  againft  fuch  perfons.  And  that 
you  will  do,  if  you  are  not  puffed  up  ; 
but  continue  infeperable  from  Jefus 
Chrift  our  God,  and  from  your  Bifhop, 
and  from  the  command  of  the  Apoftles. 
He  that  is  within  the  altar  is  pure  :  but 
he  that  is  without,  that  is,  that  does  any 
tiling  without  the  Biftiop,  and  Prefbyters* 
O  o  m<& 


28o     IGNATIU  S. 

and  Deacons,   is   not    pure  in  his    con- 
fcience". 

Sect.  XII.  "  1  falnte  you  from  Smyr- 
na.  My  bonds,   that  •  I  carry    about 

with  me  for  the  fake  of  Ghrift, —  exhort 
3/ou,  that  you  continue  in  concord  a- 
mong  yourfelves,  and  in  prayer  with  one 
another.  For  it  becomes  every  one  of 
you,  efpecially  the  Prefbyters,  to  refrefh 
ihe  Bifhop,  to  the  honor  of  the  Father 
of  Jefus  Chrift,  and  of  the   Apoftles."— 

Sect.  XIII.-—  "  Fare  ye  well  in  Jefus 
Chrift ;  being  fubject  to  your  Bifhop,  as 
to  the  command  of  God,  and  fo  likewife 
to  the  Prefbytery.  Love  every  one  his 
brother  with  an  unfeigned  heart.  My 
foul  fae  your  expiation,  not  only  now, 
but  when  I  (hall  have  attained  to  God  : 
for  I  am  yet  under  danger.— 

The  epistle  to  the  Romans. 

Sect.  II.— "  Wherefore  ye  cannot  do 
me  a  greater  kindnefs,  than  to  fuffer  me 
to  be  facrificed  to  God,  now  that  the  al- 
tar is  already  prepared  :  that  when  ye  fhall 
foe  gathered  together  in  love,  ye  may  give 

shanks 


IGNATIUS.       281 

thanks  to  the  Father,  through  Chrift 
Jefus  ;  that  he  has  vouchfafed  to  bring 
a  Bifhop  of  Syria  unto  you,  being  called 
from  the  eaft  to  the  weft."— - 

Sect,  IX.  "  Remember  in  your  pray* 
ers  the  church  of  Syria,  which  now  en- 
joys God  for  its  fhepherd  inftead  of  me  : 
Let  Jefus  Chrift  only  overfee  it,  and  your 
charity."— 

The  epistle  to  the  Philadelphians, 

The   INSCRIPTION. 

"  Ignatius,  who  is  alfo  called  Theo- 
phorus,  to  the  church  of  God  the  Father, 
and  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  which  is  at 
Philadelphia  in  Afia  ;  which  has  obtainedf 
mercy,  being  fixed  in  the  concord  of 
God,  and  rejoicing  evermore  in  the  pafll- 
on  of  our  Lord,  and  being  fulfilled  in  all 
mercy  through  his  rej^rrection  :  which 
alfo  I  falute  in  the  blood  of  Chrift  Jefus, 
which  is  our  eternal  and  undefiled  joy  ; 
efpecially  if  they  are  at  unity  with  the  Bi~ 
fhop,  and  Prefbyters  who  are  with  him, 
and  the  Deacons  appointed  according  to 
the  mind  of  Jefus  Chrift;  whom  he  ha? 
fettled  according  to  his  own  will  in  all 
firinnefs  by  his  holy  Spirit :"  Sect^ 


£8s     IGNATIUS.' 

Sect.  I.  "  Whicb-Bifhop  I  know  ob- 
tained that,  miniftry  among  yon,  not  of 
bimfelf,  neither  by  men,  nor  out  of  vain 
glory  ;  but  by  the  love  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther,  and  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  :  whofe 
moderation  I  admire  ;  who  by  his  fi- 
lence  is  able  to  do  more,  than  others  with 
#11  their  vain  talk.  For  he  is  fitted  to 
the  commands,  as theharptoits  firings." — » 

Sect.  II.  "  Wherefore  as  becomes  the 
children  both  of  the  light  and  of  truth  ; 
flee  divifions  and  falfe  doflrines  :  but 
where  your  fhepherd  is,  there  do  ye,  as 
ijieep  follow  after.  For  there  are  many 
wolves,  who  feem  worthy  of  belief,  that 
with  a  falfe  pleafure  lead  captive  thofe 
that  run  in  the  courfe  of  God  :  but  in 
your  concord  they  {hall  find  no  place." 

Sect.  III.  "  Abftain  therefore  from 
thofe  evil  herbs  which  Jefus  Chrift  does 
notdrefs  ;  becaufe  fuch  are  not  the  plan- 
tation of  the  Father.  Not  that  I  have 
found  any  divifions  among  you,  but  ra- 
ther all  manner  of  purity.  For  as  many 
ap  are  of  God,  and  of  Jefus,  are  alfo 
with  their  Bifhop.  And  as  many  as 
thai!  with,  repentance   return  into  the 

unity 


IGNATIUS.     283 

unity  of  the  church,  even  thefe  (hall  alfo 
be  the  fervants  of  God,  that  they  may 
live  according  to  Jefus  Chrift.  Be  not 
deceived,  brethren  :  if  any  one  follows 
him  that  makes  a  fchifm  in  the  church, 
he  lhall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God. 
If  any  one  walks  after  any  other  opini- 
on, he  agrees  not  with  the  paflion  of 
Chrift/' 

Sect.  IV.  M  Wherefore,  let  it  be 
your  endeavor  to  partake  all  of  the 
lame  eucharift.  For  there  is  but  one 
flefli  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  ;  and 
one  cup,  in  the  unity  of  his  blood  ;  one 
altar  ;  as  alfo  there  is  one  Biftiop,  toge- 
ther with  his  Prefbytery,  and  the  Dea- 
cons my  fellow  fervants  :  that  fo  what- 
foever  ye  do,  ye  may  da  it  according  to 
the  will  of  God." 

Sect.  VI  —  **  Flee  therefore  the  wick- 
ed arts  and  fnares  of  the  prince  of  this 
world  ;— but  come  all  together  into  the 
Tame  place,  with  an  undivided  heart." — 

Sect.   VII. —  "  I  cried  whilft  I  Was 
among  you,  I  fpake  with  a  loud  voice  ;s 
attend  to  the  Bifhop,  and  to  the  Prefby- 
tery, 


884    IGNATIUS. 

tery,  and  to  the  Deacons.  Now  fome 
fuppofed,  that  I  fpake  this'as  forefeeing  the 
divifions  that  fhould  come  among  you. 
But  he  is  my  witnefs,  for  whofe  fake  I 
am  in  bonds,  that  I  knew  nothing  from 
any  man.  But  the  fpirit  fpake,  faying 
on  this  wife  ;  Do  nothing  without  the 
Bifliop  :  keep  your  bodies  as  the  temples 
of  God  :  love  unity  :  flee  divifions  :  be  ye 
followers  of  Chrift,  as  he  was  of  the 
Father;' 

Sect.  VIII.  "  I  did  therefore  as  be- 
came me,  as  a  man  compofed  to  unity. 
For  where  there  is  divifion  and  wrath, 
God  dwelleth  not.  But  the  Lord  for- 
gives all  that  repent,  if  they  return  to  the 
unity  of  God,  and  the  council  of  the 
Bifhop." — 

Sect.  X.  "  Now  as  concerning  the 
church  of  Antioch  which  is  in  Syria  ;— - 
it  will  become  you,  as  the  church  of  God, 
to  ordain  fome  Deacon  to  go  to  them 
thither  as  the  ambaflador  of  God  ;  that 
he  may  rejoice  with  them  when  they  meet 
together,  and  glorify  God's  name.  Blef- 
fed  be  that  man  in  Jefus  Chrift,  who 
lhall  be  found  worthy  of  fuch  a  miniftry  ; 

and 


IGNATIUS.     285 

2nd  -ye  yourfelves  alfo  fhall  be  glorified. 
Now  if  ye  be  willing,  it  is  not  impoflible 
for  you  to  do  this  for  the  fake  of  God  : 
as  alfo  the  other  neighbouring  churches 
have  fent  them,  fome  Bifhops,  fomc 
Priefts,  and  Deacons." 

The  epistle  to  the  Smyrnjeans. 

Sect.  VIII.  "  See  that  ye  all  follow 
your  Bifhop,  as  Jefus  Chrift,  the  Father  % 
and  the  Prefbytery  as  the  Apoftles.  And 
reverence  the  Deacons,  as  the  command 
of  God.  Let  no  man  do  any  thing  of 
what  belongs 'to  the  church  feparately 
from  the  Bifhop.  Let  that  eucharift  be 
looked  upon  as  well  eftablifhed,  which  is 
cither  offered  by  the  Bifhop,  or  by 
him  to  whom  the  Bifhop  has  given  his 
confent.  Wherefoever  the  Bifhop  fhall 
appear,  there  let  the  people  alfo  be  :  as 
where  Jefus  Chrift  is,  there  is  the  catho- 
lic church.  It  is  not  lawful  without  the 
Bifhop,  either  to  baptife,  or  to  cele- 
brate the  holy  communion  :  but  what- 
foever  he  fhall  approve  of,' that  is  alfo 
pleafing  to  God ;  that  fo  whatever  is 
done,  may  be  fure  and  well  done/—* 

SXGTm 


s86       IGNATIUS, 

Sect.  IX.  "  For  what  remains,  it  is  ve- 
ry reafbnable  that  we  fhotild  repent,  whilft 
there  is  yet  time  to  return  to  God  .  It 
is  a  good  thing  to  have  a  due  regard 
both  to  God  and  the  Bifliop  :  he  that 
honors  the  Bifhop,  fhall  be  honored  of 
God  :  but  he  that  does  any  thing  with- 
out his  knowledge,  minifters  unto  the 
devil." 


Sect.  XI. —  "  It  will  be  fitting,  and 
for  the  honor  of  God,  that  your  church 
appoint  fome  worthy  delegate,  who,  be- 
ing come  as  far  as  Syria,  may  rejoice  to- 
gether with  them  that  are  in  peace. — 
Wherefore  I  fliould  think  it  a  worthy 
aftion  to  fend  fome  one  from  you,  with 
an  epiftle,  to  congratulate  with  them 
their  peace  in  God." 

Sect.    XII. "   I   falute    your  very 

worthy  Bifhop,  and  your  venerable  Prel- 
bytery,  and  your  Deacons  my  fellow-fer- 
vants  ;  and  all  of  you  in  general,  and 
every  one  in  particular,  in  the  name  of 
Jefus  Chrift,"— 


IGNATIUS.       287 

The  epistle  to  Polycarp. 

The  INSCRIPTION. 

cc  Ignatius,  who  is  alfo  called  Theo- 
phorus,  toPolycarp,  Bifhop  of  the  chur 
which  is  at  Smyrna  •,  their  overfeer,  but  ra- 
ther himfeU  overlooked  byGod  the  Father, 
and  the  Lord  Jefus  Chrift:  all  happinefs.*4 

Sect.  I.-—"  Maintain  thy  place  with 
all  care  both  of  fldh  and  fpirit  :  make  i,t 
thy  endeavor  to  preferve  unity,  than  which 
nothing  is  better. ---Speak  to  every  ope  as 
God  fhall  enable  thee."— 

Sect.  IV".  "  Let  not  the  widows  be 
neglefkd  :  be  thou,  affer  God,  their 
guardian.  Let  nothing  be  done,  with-? 
out  thy  knowledge  and  confent :  neither 
do  thou  any  thing  but  according  to  the 
will  of  God  ;  as  alio  thou  doft  with  all 
conitancy.  Let  your  ailemblies  be  more 
full:  inquire  into  all  byname*:  over- 
look not  the  men  nor  maid-fervants  $ 
neither  let  them  be  puffed  up,  but  rather 
let  them  be  more  fubjecl  to  the  glory  of 
God,  that  they  may  obtain  from  him  a 
better  liberty." — 

P  p  Sect. 

f  u  Ex  onom  atospantas  ZEETEI,"    Inquire af-er, 
•r  feek  out,  all  by  name, 


a88     IGNATIUS. 

Sect.  V.  "  If  any  man  can  remain  in 
a  virgin  ftate,  to  the  honor  of  the  flefh 
of  Chrift,  let  him  remain  without  boait- 
ing ;  but  if  he  boaft  he  is  undone.  And 
if  he  defire  to  be  more  taken  notice  of 
than  the  Bifhop,  he  is  corrupted.  But 
it  becomes  all  iuch  as  are  married,  whe- 
ther men  or  women,  to  come  together 
with  the  confent  of  the  Bifhop,  that  fo 
their  marriage  may  be  according  to  god- 
linefs,  and  not  in  luft.  Let  all  things  be 
done  to  the  honor  of  God." 

Sect.  VI.  "  Hearken  unto  the  Bi- 
fhop, that  God  may  alio  hearken  unto 
you.  My  foul  be  fecurity  for  them  that 
fubmit  to  their  Bifhop,  with  their  Prefby- 
ters  and  Deacons.  And  may  my  portion 
be  together  with  their's  in  God."— 

Sect.  VII.  "  It  will  be  very  fit,  O 
moft  worthy  Polycarp,  to  call  a  feledl 
council,  and  chufe  fome  one  whom  yc 
particularly  love,  and  who  is  patient  of 
labor  ;  that  he  may  be  the  mefTenger  of 
God  :  and  that  going  into  Syria,  he  may 
glorify  your  inceffant  love,  to  the  praife 

of  Gboft.>^ 

Sect. 


IGNATIUS-     289 

Sect.  VIII,  But  forafmuch  as  I  have 
riot  been  able  to  write  to  all  the  chur- 
ches-—do  you  write  ,td  the  churches  that 
are  near  you,  as  being  inftrufted  in  the 
will  of  God,  that  they  alfo  do  in  like 
manner.  Let  thofe  that  are  able  fend 
meflengers,  and  let  the  reft  fend  their  let- 
ters by  thofe  who  fhall  be  fent  by  you  5 
that  you  may  be  glorified  to  all  eternity, 
of  which  you  are  worthy."— 

Observations  and  Remarks  upon  the 
testimonies  from  Ignatius* 

THOUGH  I  haveenlarged,in  the  fore- 
going pages,  upon  the  reafons  we  have 
to  think,  that  the  "  feven  epiftles"  of  Ig- 
natius are  either  spurious,  or  fo  inter- 
larded WITH  AFTER  ADDITIONS  as  nO£ 

to  be  depended  on  ;  yet,  I  can  truly  fay, 
I  was  not  moved  to  this  from  an  appre- 
henfion,  that  "  thefe  epiftles,"  unlefs  ta- 
ken out  of  the  way,  would  be  ruinous,  or 
indeed  at  all  hurtful,  to  the  caufe  in  the 
defence  of  which  I  am  engaged.  Epif- 
copalians,  I  know,  ever  repair  to  them  as 
their  main  ftrength  ;  and  are  ready  to 
think,  and  fay,  that  we  are  difpofed  to 
fpeak    injuriously    of   them,   upon  any 

pretences! 


490     IGNATIUS. 

pretences,  however  flighty,  becacfe  they 
fyeak  fo  clearly  and  fully  againft  us.  But 
they  are  herein  greatly  mdtaken.  It  is 
owing  to  the  force  oftiuth,  and  not  to 
prejudice,  or  fear  kit  our  cauie  fhould 
furTer,  if  tried  by  them,  that  we  reprefent 
them  as  under  very  ftrong  marks  of  luf- 
picion.  And  to  induce  a  belief  of  this, 
and,  at  the  fame  time,  to  do  juftiee  td  our 
fide  of  the  difpure,  I  fhall,  in  what  fol- 
lows, fuppoie  thefe  '<  epillles"  to  be  ge- 
nuine, as  truly  fo  as  the  writings  of 
Clement,  or  any  other  primitive  Father  $ 
and,  in  this  view  of  them,  endeavor, 
fo  fhew,  that  they  furnifh  much  more 
evidence  in  favor  of  us,  than  or  the  Epif^ 
copalians  ;  and  that  they  may  be  juftly 
brought  as  witnefles  in  defence  of  our 
cauie,  rather  than  their's. 

In  order  to  fet  this  matter  in  a  fair 
point  of  light,  let  it  be  remembered,  the 
Bilhops  pleaded  for  by  our  antagoniits 
are  diocesan  ones;  and  the  powers 
vhey  make  essential  to  the  epifcopal 
6ffiCe,  arid  exclude  Prefbyters  from,  arc 
thofeof  government,  ordination,  and 
confirmation.  Let  us  now  review  the 
*  Jgnauan  tcftimorries,"  and  fee  whether 

they 


IGNATIUS.     291 

they  fpeak  of  such  Bishops,  or  these 
powers  that  are  laid  to  be  essential 
to  their  office,  and  charafteriftical  of  it. 

I  shall  begin  with  faying,  that,  upon 
the  ftridieft  examination  of  all  that  is  faid  in 
the  "  epiftles  of  Ignatius,"  nothing  can 
be  found  that  will  lead  one  into  the  idea 
of  a  diocesan  Bifhop.  It  is  as  evident 
ss  it  well  can  be,  from  the  whole  tenor 
of  "  thefe  epiftles,"  that  the  Ignatian 
Bifhop  was  the  paftoral  head  of  a  single 
congregation,  who  ufually  met  toge- 
ther in  one  place,  and  united  in  an  atten- 
dance on  the  inftitutions  of  Chriftianity. 
80  much  is  to  be  met  with  upon  this 
point,  and  in  language  fo  full  and  ex- 
prefs,  that  no  reafonable  room  is  left  for 
hefitation  or  doubt. 

Ignatius  *  infcribes"  all  thefe  epif- 
tles to  single  focieties  of  Chriftians,  in 
this  and  the  other  particular  place.  "T6 
the  church  in  Ephefus,"  in  u  Magnefia," 
in  "  Philadelphia,"  and  fo  on.  And  he 
applies  ieverally  to  thefe  churches,  as  one 
would  fpeak  to  a  fingle  congregation  of 
Chriftians,  whofe  cuftom  it  was  frequent- 
ly to  affemble  in  one  place,  and  join  as 

one 


29s     IGNATIUS. 

one  in  worfhipping  God  through  Jefus 
Chrift.  And  noi  only  fo,  but  the  directi- 
ons and  exhortations  he  gives,  both  to 
thefe  churches,  and  their  Bifhops,  arefuch 
as  make  it  morally  certain,  that  he  writes 
to  fingle  congregations  of  Chriftians,  and 
not  a  number  of  them  constituting 
one  church.  Inftanecs  to  this  purpofc 
might  eafily  be  produced  out  of  each  of 
"  thefe  epiftles."  But,  as  fuch  an  enu- 
meration would  be  both  needlefs,  and  te- 
dious, I  fhall  felefr  only  a  few  ftriking 
fpecimens  that  mull  be  convincing  to 
prejudice  itfelf. 

He  fays  to  the  church  at  Ephefus, 
"  If  the  prayer  of  one  or  two  has  fuch 
efficacy,  how  much  more  that  of  the 
Bifhop,  and  the  whole  church  !  He 
that  cometh  not  to  the  same  place  *  is 

puffed 


* 


The  phrafe  epi  to  auto,  may  be  undcrftood  as  rer 
ferring  either  to  time,  place,  or  design,  and  is 
accordingly  tranflated,  by  the  beft  critics,  in  all  tl^efe  fen- 
fes.  Jt's  propriety  as  meaning  place  or  time,  ra- 
ther then  design  ;  and  design  rather  than  either 
of  the  former,  can  be  determined  onlyj  by  the 
import  of  the  fentence  in  which  it  is  found, 
and  the  part  it  bears  as  connected  with  the  difcourfe. 
In  this  view  of  the  phrafe,  it  cannot  be  better  tranflated 
here,  than  in  the  words  of  Arch -Bifhop  Wake,  to  the 
same  place,    He  was  as  clofe  a  friend  to  the  church 

of 


IGNATIUS.     293 

puffed    up   with    pride. Endeavor   to 

meet  frequently  to  praifeand  glorify  God. 
For  when  you  are  often  together  in  the 
same  place,  the  ftrength  of  fatan  is 
broken.— -Since  every  one  of  you  by 
name,  with  common  confent  meet  to- 
gether in  one  faith,  and  one  Jefus  Chrift, 
breaking' one  loaf,  which  is  the  medi- 
cine of  immortality/' This  is  proper 

language,  if  applied  to  a  fingle  fociety  of 

worfhipping 

of  England  as  any  man  in  his  day,  and  would  not  have 
given  this  turn  to  the  words,  could  he  have  pitched  upon 
any  other,  more  favorable  to  the  caufe  of  Epifcopacy. 
The  plain  truth  is,  whether  the  phrafe  is  tranllated  here, 
or  in  the  other  places  where  it  is  ufed  in  "  Ignatius's 
epiftles,"  to  the  same  place,  or  with  one 
mind,  or  design,  the  argument,  in  fupport  of  the 
caufe  we  are  defending,  is  equally  ftrong.  For  it  lies  in 
this,  that  the  Chriftians,  conftituting  the  Ephefian,  and 
other  churches,  wrote  to  by  Ignatius,  are  evidently  fpo- 
ken  of  as  single  congregations,  which  might, 
and  ordinarily  did,  meet  together  for  the  worftiip  of 
God:  and  if  fo,  it  muft  be  in  the  same  place, 
and  more  certainly  than  with  one  mind.  It  is  true, 
if  thefe  churches  were  previously  known  to  confift 
of  a  number  of  congregations,  more  or  lefs,  each  having 
a  Biftiop  at_  their  head,  as  their  unking  principle,  they 
might  be  faid  to  come  together  with  one  heart,  up- 
on one  design,  though  the  congregations,  of  which 
they  confifted,  afiembled  for  worfhip  in  fifty  differ- 
ent p  l  a  c  e  s .  But  it  ought  not  to  be  taken  for  granted, 
but  firft  fully  proved,  that  they  werechurches  of  this  kind. 
Until  this  is  done,  it  ought  to  be  fuppofed,  that  the v  were 
single  congregations  j  efpecially,  as  this  is 
the  natural  and  moii  obvious  meaning  of  all  the  fen- 
tences,  in  which  the  phrafe  is  ufed,  and  of  the  whole 
ciifcourfe  with  which  it  is  connected. 


£94     IGNATIUS. 

worfhipping  Chiiftians  ;  but  not  eafiJy 
underftood,  if  confidered  as  directed  to  a 
diocefan  church  ;  or,  in  other  words,  a 
church  constituted  of  a  number  of  con- 
gregations, more  or  lefs,  incapable  of 
meeting  together  in  one  place,  and  of 
having  perfonal  communion  there  in 
the  public  offices  of  religion.  It  is  in- 
deed, in  this  way  of  application,  quite 
unintelligible,  unlefs  we  recur  to  that 
figurative  mode  of  fpeech,  which  was 
made  neceffary  in  after  ages,  when  the 
church  began  to  appear  with  the  evi- 
dent marks   of  antichrift. 

He  writes  to  the  church  in  Magnefia 
in  thefe  words,  "  When  you  meet  toge- 
ther, let  there  be  one  prayer,  one  depre- 
cation, *  one  mind.-— There  is  one  Je- 
ius  Chrift,  than  whom  nothing  is  more 

cx-cellent. 


It  has  been  urged,  that  the  mia  PROSkuc'see,  znd 
mia  deffsis,  to  v\h!ch  the*'  Magneton  church"  is 
here  exhorted,  is  no  proof,  that  it  did  not  confift  of  a 
number  of  congregations ,  v. ho,  in  i> i f f e kfnt  pla- 
ces, ottered  up  their  prayers  to  God.  It  is  acknow- 
ledged, was  it  a  previously  indifputed  fact,  th=t 
this  church  did  confift  of  a  number  of  congregati- 
ons, "  the  one  prayer,"  and  "  one  fupplication,"  here 
fpoken  of,  ought  to  be  uncterftood  in  a  fen'e  that  wouM 
cowpoi  tie   nature  of  iuch   a  church.    And  it  is 

net 


IGNATIUS/    295 

excellent,     all  therefore  run  together  as 

tO  ONE  TEMPLE  of  Gbd5  as  t6  Olle  AL- 
TAR, as  to  one  Jefus  Chrift."  Is  this 
fpeaking  to  a  diocefs,  or  a  particular  con- 
gregation ofChriftiaris  ?  If  common  fenfe 
may  be  the  judge,  there  can  be  no  difpine. 
The  cafe  is  too  plain  to  admit  of  it. 

He  thus  befpeaks  the  church  in  Phila- 
delphia, "  It  becomes  you,  as  a  church, 
of  God  to  chafe  a  Deacon  to  go  thither 
[to  Antioch]  on  a  divine  embaffy,  that  he 

riot  denied,  but  tint  a  fenfe  might  be  invented,  in  WKich 
there  might  be  "  one  priyer,"  and  "  one  fuppli cation," 
though  the  church,  that  joins  in  it,  fbould  affemble  in  an 
hundred  difFereit  places.  But  what  is  all  this  to  the 
purpose  ?  It  i>  nothing  more  than  firft  fuppofing,  with- 
out provjm*,  that  this  "  Mag^efian  church"  was  of  the 
l>  1  o c r s A n  kind,  a  complex  body,  made  one  by 
the  union  of  its  feveral  parts  with  a  Biihop  at  its  head, 
and  the  1  putting  a  fenfe  on  thefe  words,  as  grounded  on 
this  fuppofition.  Such  reafoning,  if  uled  by  others, 
would  be  called  a  meer  begging  the  queftion.  Every 
.  one  kno  "'5,  that  the  church  of  England,  though  a  com- 
plex body,  made  up  of  a  confiderable  number  of  dio- 
clsses,  in  each  of  which  there  are  many  worlhip- 
ping  afTemblies  of  Chriftians,  does,  and  muft,  join  m 
"  one  prayer,"  and  in  "  one  fuppli  cat  ion",  becav.fe  they 
are  oblige-]  to  ufe  precifely  thy  fame  words  in  their  pub- 
lic addrt  ties  to  Heaven.  And  was  it  as  certain,  that: 
the  churches  Ignatius  writes  to  confifted  of  a  number  of 
worfnipping  afiemblies,  more  or  Iefs,  who,  in  their  pray- 
ers, ufed  the  fame  words,  no  argument  could  be  deduced 
from  th'jir   "  one  prayer,"  and  *'  one  fupplication,"  {n 

evidence 


S96     IGNATIUS. 

ma'y   rejoice    with   them,   being  assem- 
bled together." Let  me  afk   here, 

was  it  a  diocefs,  or  a  fingle  congre- 
gation, who,  as  a  Chriftian  church, 
were  to  make  choice  of  a  meffenger 
to  go  to  Antioch  ?  And  was  it  the  church 
of  Chriftians  at  Antioch,  or  a  whole  dio- 
cefs, that  this  meflfenger  was  to  rejoice 
with,  when  they  had1  aflembled  together  ? 
No  reaibnable  anfwer  can  be  given  to 
thefe  queffions,  but  the  right  one;  which 
is,  that  a  (ingle  congregation  of  Chrifti- 
ans only  is  addreffed  to.  It  follows  in 
the  next  words,  "  Happy  in  Chrift  Jefus 
is  he  who  fliai-1  bethought  worthy  of  fuch 
a  miniftry  :  if  ye  be  willing,-  ye  may  dt> 
this  for  the  fake '  of  God  ;  as  the  other 
neighbouring  ghurches  have  fent, 
&me  Biihops,  fome  Prclbyters,  and  fome 

Deacons/' 

evidence  of  their  being  fingle  focietles  of  Chriftians.     But 
the  point  in    queftion   is,   whether  thefe  churches  were 

DIOCESAN,    Or  SINGLE     CONGREGATIONS;     and 

it  is  a  good  argument,  in  proof  of  the  latter,  that  they 
are  called  upon  to  meet  together,  that  they  may  unite 
as  one  in  prayer  and  fupplication  to  God.  They 
might,  in  fome  contrived  fenfe,  be  faid  to  do  this,  if 
they  met  in  different  alfemblies  ;  but  it  ought  to  be  clear- 
ly  and  fully  proved,  that  they  thus  met,  before  this  fenfe 
can  reasonably  be  put  upon  the  words.  They  are 
moil  naturally,  eafily,  and  obvioufly  applicable  to  one 
affembly  of  Chriftians,  uniting  in  prayer  to  Almighty 
God  :  nor  mould  this  fenfe  be  departed  from,  \mlds 
evident  neceifity  fliould  call  for  itt 


IGNATIUS,     297 

Deacons."  Is  the  mode  of  di£Uon,  here 
ufed,  epifcopalian,  or  congregational  ?  Is 
it  the  pra&ice  of  dioceffes,  or  fingle  con- 
gregations of  Chriftians,  to  chufe  mef- 
fengers,and  fend  them  to  other  churches  ? 
When  neighbouring  churches,with  each 
their  ownBiihop,  their  own  Prefbyters, 
and  Deacons,  are  here  fpoken  of,  can  it 
with  propriety,  or  confiftency,  be  fup- 
pofed,  that  thefe  neighbouring  chur- 
ches were  dioceffes  ?  Is  it  not  infinitely 
more  natural  and  reafonable,  to  under- 
stand by  them  fingle  congregations  ? 

He  gives  the  following  exhortations  m 
his  epiftle  to  Polycarp,  Bifhop  of  the 
church  at  Smyrna,  "  Let  not  the  wi- 
dows be  neglected, be  thou  afterGod  their 
guardian.™ Let  your  affemblies  be  more 
frequent.— -Enquire  after  all  by  name. 
Do  not  proudly  overlook  the  men-ser- 
vANTS,andtheMAiD-SERVANTS."  Thefe 
infttu6tions  are  highly  pertinent,  if  Po- 
lycarp's  church  was  only  a  congregation 
of  Chriftians  at  Smyrna  5  and  he  might, 
if  he  was  faithful  and  diligent,  have  com- 
plied with  them,  to  his  own  honor,  and 
the  fpiritual  good  of  the  people  who  were 
his  fpccial  charge.    But  if  his  church  had 

beei* 


298     IGNATIUS. 

been  of  the  diqcefan  kind,  what  he  is  ex- 
horted to  is  highly  abfurd,  becaufe  abfo- 
lutely  impoffible  to  be  put  \n  pra&ice.  -j- 
Jkfides,  what  diocefan  Bifhop  ever  ima- 
gined it  was  hi$duty  to  'require  after  all 
within,  his  diocefs  by  nam?;,  not  over- 
looking even  servants  ?  nioft  certainly 
no  one  among  this  kind  of  Bifliops  ever 
performed,  or  endeavored  to  perform,  this 

fervice  : 


•f  To  evade  the  force  of  the  argument  here,  it  has  I  cen  faid, 
by  the  author  of  "  an  original  draught  of  the  primiuve 
church,"  p.  79,  80,  that  "  the  advice  to  Polycarp  wds 
**  only  to  do  what  the  primitive  Bi(hops  always  did, 
"  that  i$,to  keep  the  names  of  every  member  of  \\i6  church 
f*  enrolledin,  what  the  ancients  called,  the  M  a  tkicui  a 
*'  [lilt  or  regiiicr]  of  their  church.  lie  is  advifed  to 
**  "inquire  out  by  name,"  that  is, to  get  fuch  a  regifterof 
*'  their  name«:,  that  upon  occafipn  of  any  object  ot  cha- 
"  ritv  propofed  to  him,  or  of  any  complaint,  or  ap pli- 
tr  cation,  made  to  him  about  any  within  his  cure  or  iu- 
<(  rifdiction,-rrhe  might,  by  me^m>  of  this  general  m  a- 
*'  tkicula,  as  the  other  {.iiihops  did,  more  directly 
99  know,  how  the  cafeftood  with  them  :  and  which  was, 
••  more  than  all  this*  the  names  thus  enrolled  in  this 
"  i acred  record  were  perfqaaUy  entitled  theu  to  all 
9\  the  public  iutercedions,  and  fpiritual  pjemngs  obtain- 
*'  ed  by  the  eucharillical  prayers.,  oblation0,  and  facra- 
«'  merits  of  me  whole  churc'.i. — And  thefe  were  furficient 
iC  rcafons  for  that  apofiolical  i/ather  [Ignatius]  to  mind 
*'  a  Kilhop  of  the  church  to  be  careful  of  keeping  fuch  a 
4<  ntcellary  MATR1CUXA  as  this,  and  an  effectual  way 
ff  for  St.  Polycarp  to  take  care  of  the  meaneft  anc$ 
il  pooreft  members  of  his  diocefs.  But  as  to  the  matter 
"  of  one  lingle  congregation  being  then  under  his  care, 
'  a/»d  that  he  mv.ft  *<  perfoaally  know  them  all   by 

name,  * 


IGNATIUS.     299 

fervice  :  whereas  congregational  Bifhop* 
efteem  this  their  duty,  and  many  of  thern 
are  faithful  in  the  pra&ice  of  it,  and  their 
churches  herefrom  receive  great  benefit. 

In  thefe  epiftles,  he  fpeaks  of  «  one 
altar,"  or  communion-table  >  of  "  one 
eucharift  j"  of  "  breaking  one  Joaf  1    of 

his 

«'  name/'  as  one  neighbour  knows  another,  I  think  they 
"  no  more  imply  it,  than  that  Auguftus  Cafar  had  but 
"  one  town  to  command,  and  could  know  every  fubject 
«  he  had,  when  (for  many  political  reafons)  he  cauled 
f  them  all  to  be  enrolled,  and  required  the  date  of  his 
<•  empire  to  be  brought  in  to  him."      Nothing  more 
need  be   faid  to  all  this  than  juft  to  obferve,  that  the  ad- 
vice here  riven  to  Polvcarp  is  interpreted,  not  comfor- 
mably  to  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  but  to  after  ages, 
whenBimops  were  at  the  head  of  churches  known  to  be 
diocetfes  confifting  of  numerous  affemblies  of  worflup- 
pine  Chriftians.     It  is  no  wonder,  if  methods  were  now 
contrived  for  Bifhops  to  do  thofe  duties  of  their  office  by 
others,  which  they  could  not  perform  in  their  own 
persons.    But  it  was  not  thus  in  the  times  of  Igna- 
tius.   Bifhops  were  then  «  in  labors  more  abundant, 
both  public  and  private,  in  which  they  personally 
exerted  themfelves,  and  not  by  thofe  who  were  depu- 
ties under  them.     This  did  not  become  a  cuftom,  un- 
til the  love  of  eafe,  grandeur,  and  power,  had  got  mucti 
the  better  of  a  zealous  concern  to  promote  the  true  in- 
ter** of  the  religion  of  Jefus.    There  is  therefore  no  ima- 
ginable eood  reafon  to  think,  but  that  the  advice  here 
Kiven  to  Polvcarp  was,  personally  to  acquaint  nim- 
felf  with  his  whole  church,  even  the  meaneft  members  or 
it,  that  he  might "  be  able  to  hit  his  ^  conduct,  upon   r i 
own  knowledge,  to  their  fpccial  circumftances.     **« 


3oo     I   G   N  A   T   I  U    S, 

his  being  "  deprived  of  the  bread  of  God 
who  comes  not  to  the  "  one  altar."  Thefe 
phrafes  are  all  readily  underftood,  upon 
the  fuppofition,  that  Ignatius  is  writing 
to  Tingle  congregations  ;  but  otherwife 
there,  is  no  fenfe  in  what  he  fays,  unlefs 
wc  make  him  fpeak  figuratively,  whea 
there  is  no  need  of  it.  A  fingle  congrega- 
tion of  Chriftians,  fuch  an  one  as  he  is 
all  along  writing  to,  may  come  to  "  one 
altar,"  or  communion-table  ;  they  may 
all  "  break"  of  the  fame  fecramental 
"  loaf  :"  whereas,it  isimpoffible,  aBifhpp 
with  his  whole  diocefs  fhould  literally  do 
thefe  things.     They  cannot  be  fuppofed 

to 

is  evidently  that  meaning  of  the  words  which  naturally 
offers  at  firft  fight  :  nor  can  any  other  be  put  upon 
them,  unlefs  we  needlefly,  I  may  rather  fay  unreafona- 
bly,  repair  to  times  greatly  diftant  from  thofe,  in 
which  Ignatius  and  Polycarp  fuftained  the  office  of  Bi- 
fhops, and  take  our  idea  of  the  advice  here  given,  not 
from  their  times,  but  thofe  after-ones,  when  there  was 
a  vifible  and  fignal  difference,  not  only  in  the  external 
circumftances,  but  the  known  employment,  of  thofe 
who  were  then  Bifhops.  There  is  no  hint  given, 
within  the  two  firft  centuries,  of  the  M  a  t  r  ic  u  L  a  ,  this 
author  fpeaks  of  ;  or  of  a  Bifhops  ading  in  his  cure, 
as  Auguftus  Caefar  did,  with  refped:  to  an  enrollment 
of  the  people  under  his  command.  We  muft  come 
down  to  thofe  ages,  in  which  Bifhops  more  nearly 
refembled  Emperors,  than  they  did  in  the  days  of 
Ignatius,  before  we  fhall  find  the  leaft  reafon  to  in- 
terpret his  advice  to  Polycarp,  in  a  (enh  different  jfroin 
that  we  have  taken  it  in. 


IGNATIUS. 


301 


to  do  them,  without  calling  in  the  help 
of  aflrong  and  bold  figure.  *— But  I  may 
not  enlarge.  It  would  be  an  affront  to 
the  reaader's  underftanding,  fhould  I  fay 
any  thing  more  upon  a  point  fo  obvioufly 
evident. 

It  will  perhaps  be  pleaded,  it  is  a  cir- 
euraftancial     matter    only,     whether    a 

Bifhop's 

*  When  Chriftian  churches,  in  procefs  of  time,  cosfifted  of 
numerous  aflemblies,  who  had  each  their  "  altar,"  their 
"  eucharift,"  their  facramental  "  loaf,"  the  invention 
of  man  contrived  a  ftnfe,  in  which  thefe  *■*  altars,'* 
'•  eucharifts,"  and  V  loaves,"  though  numerous, 
might  be  called  one;  not  indeed  in  the  same,  but 
different  respects.  But  this  metaphy fical  dex- 
terity did  not  come  into  ufe,  until  long  after  the  age  of 
Ignatius  :  for  which  reafon,  it  is  delufive,  to  fay  no- 
thing worfe,  to  apply  thefe  different  respect* 
to  his  "  one  altar,"  **  one  eucharift,"  and  t(  one  loaf ;" 
making  them  many,  and  yet  one,  in  respects 
that  were  never  fo  much  as  thought  of  in  his  day.  I 
have  never  yet  feen,  within  the  two  firft  centuries,  nor 
until  the  art  of  man  was  evidently  employed  to  vindi- 
cate corruption  in  the  church  of  God,  fo  much  as  a  An- 
gle inftance  of  the  mode  of  fpeaking  here  applied  to  the 
truly  primitive  Ignatius.  Let  fuch  an  inftance  be  pro- 
duced, if  any  are  able  to  do  it.  Until  then,  it  will  be 
to  no  purpofe  to  tell  us,  that,  in  ancient  times,  there 
was  only  "  one  altar,"  and  •*  one  facramental  loaf,"  in 
a  Chriftian  church  in  one  respect,  though  in  ano- 
ther there  were  fome  hundreds.  It  was  not  the  man- 
ner, in  truly  primitive  times,  to  multiply  altars  in 
one  sense,  and  make  them  all  but  one  in  another. 
We  may  not  look  for  this,  until  the  church  was  far  gonft 
in  anuchriftiarjr  corruption. 


3o2     IGNATIUS. 

Bifhop's  church  be  great  or  fmall.   His  ef- 
fential  powers  are  the  fame,  whether  it 
confifts  of  a  (ingle  congregation  only,  of 
a  number,  more  or  lefs*      This,  as  I  ap- 
prehend, is  a  fundamental  miftake  upon 
this  head.      Diocefan,  and   parochial,  or 
congregational,  epifcopacy  effentially  dif- 
fer, and   are,  in  the  nature  of  the  thing, 
fubverfive   of  each    other.       Scores,  or 
hundreds,  of  parochial  Bifhops  rftuft  be 
deprived  of  the  proper  powers  of  their  of- 
fice, to  make  way  for  ofte  fuch  diocefan, 
as  the  Englifh  Bifhop  is  known   to  be. 
The  plain  truth  is,  diocefan  epifcopacy  is- 
an  invention  of  man,  wholly  a  political 
conftitution  >  and,   I   believe,    effentially 
wrong  :  as  it  is  impoflible  a  diocefan  Bi- 
fhop fhould  do  the  duty  of  the  Bifhop's 
office,  as  defcribed  in  the  new  teftament, 
or  even  in  the  "  epiftles  of  Ignatius  ;"and 
the  placing  Bifhops  at  the  head  of  large 
dioceffes,   inftead  of  tending  to  ferve  the 
intereft  of  (Thrift's  fpiritual  kingdom,  has 
been  greatly  hurtful  to  it,  in  all  ages  from 
the    firft   rife  of  antichrift  to   this   day. 
But  however  this  be,   which  does  not  fall 
fo  dire&Iy  within  our  prefent  defign,  thus 
much    is    certain,   that   the   Ignatian 
Bifhop   was  not  a  diocesan  one  ;    and 

that. 


IGNATIUS. 


3°3 


ihat,  if  his  Bifhop  is  to  be  the  pattern,  or 
exemplar,  there  is  not  a  Bifhop  in  all  En- 
gland conformed  to  it.  The  Bifhops,  or 
faftors,  of  parochial,  or  congregational, 
churches  do  much  more  nearly  refemblc 
the  Bifhop  held  out  to  view  in  "  his  epif- 
ties." But  to  go  on, 

Ignatius  is  not  only  filerit  about  dio- 
cefanBifhops,  but  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment,   ORDINATION,      2nd    CONF1RMA-* 

tion,  a,s  appropriated  to  Bifhops  of  any 
kind,  as  an  order  diftincl  from  Prefbyters; 

To  begin  with  government.  Ancf 
here  it  ought  to  be  obferved,  there  was, 
in  each  of  the  churches  Ignatius  wrote 
to,  a  Presbytery,  or,  in  other  words* 
a  number  of  Prefbyters,  more  of  lefs,  con- 
ftituting  a  council,  fenate,  college,  or 
whatever  other  name  any  may  pleafe  to 
givp  it,  of  which  the  Bifhop  was  the  firft, 
err  chief,  having  fome  degree  of  fuperiority 
beyond  the  reft.  But  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  church,  or  of  the  Prefbyters 
or  it,  was  solely  in  his  hands  ;  or  that 
his  precedency  was  fuch,  as  imported  his 
bsing  of  another  and  higher  order  than 
R  r  t&afc 


3c4     IGNATIUS. 

that  of  Prefbyters,  he  has  no  where 
given  us  to  underftand,  in  any  ofhisepif- 
tles.  Far  from  this,  the  general  ftrain  of 
them  all  is,  to  lead  us  into  the  thought, 
that  all  church-affairs  were  to  be  direct- 
ed, and  governed,  not  by  the  sole  pow- 
i:r  of  the  Bishop,  but  by  the  authority 
and  voice  of  the  Ppesbytery  joined  to 
his.  This  is  io  obvious,  that  no  one  can 
eafily  read  his  epiftles  without  perceiving 
it  to  be  the  truth  of  fac>.  The  evidence 
is  too  glaring  not  to  be  feen  at  once. 

It  is  acknowledged,  Ignatius  fpeaks  of 
Bifhops,  in  thefe  epiftles,  in  a  high  ftrain 
of  language,  fuch  as  calls  for  great  can- 
dor to  free  it  from,  at  leaft,  fome  degree 
of  profanity.  But  the  fame  may  be  faid, 
with  as  real  truth,  in  regard  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  fpeaks  of  Prefbyters. 
Does  he-  call  Bifhops  "  the  figure  of  the 
Father  ?"  He  goes  on  to  call  Prefbyters, 
"  the  council  of  God,  and  conjunction  of 
the  Apofiles."  Does  he  fpeak  of  the  Bi- 
fhop  as  n  the  grace  of  God  r"  He,  in  the 
fame  place,  fpeaks  of  tfcfc  Prefbytery  as 
44  law  of  Chrift."  Does  he  reprefent  the 
Bifhop  as  "prefiding  in  the  place  of  God  ?'" 

At 


IGNATIUS.     305 

At  the  fame  time,  he  puts  the  Prefoyters 
"  in  the  room  of  the  apoftolic  fenate." 

It  is  acknowledged  likewife,  he  fre- 
quently exhorts  the  churches  to  "  obey 
their  Bifhops,"  to  be  in  "  fubje&ion  to 
them."  But  he  enjoins  it  on  them,  in 
like  manner,  to  be  "fubjett  to  their  Pref- 
byters."  And  the  language  in  which  he 
exhorts  them  to  obedience  and  fubjettion 
to  their  Prefbyters,  as  well  as  Bifhops,  is 
not  only  very  ftrong  and  preffing,  but 
fo  often  repeated  as  to  be  really  difguft- 
ful.  *<  Attend  to  the  Bifhop  and  Pref- 
bytery  £  follow  the  Bifhop,  and  the  Pref- 
byters  "  "obey  theBifhop,and  Prefbyters  f 
be  "  fubjeft  to  the  Bifhop,  and  Prefby- 
tery,"  are  injundtions,  in  thefe  epiftles,  fo 
frequent  as  to  be,  at  once,  both  needlefs, 
and  troublefome.  # 

Should  it  be  faid  here,  he  gives  the 
church  of  Smyrna  to  understand,  "  it  is 
not  lawful  without  the  Bifhop  either  to 
baptife,  or  make  a  love-feaft  ;"  and  ac- 
cordingly exhorts,  "  let  none  do  any  of 
thofe  things  which  belong  to  the  church 
without  the  Bifhop/9  Should  it  be  added, 

he 


3G 


6     IGNATIUS, 


he  tells  the  church  of  Tralles,  «  it  1$ 
neceflary  they  fhould  acl  nothing  with- 
out the  Bifhop/'  The  anfwer  is  ready 
at  hand  ;  he  as  expreiUy  tells  the  fame 
church  of  Tralles,  and  in  the  fame  epii- 
tie,  "  he  that  does  any  thing  without  the 
Bifhop,  and  Preibyters,  is  not  of  a  pure 
confcience."  And  in  his  epiftle  to  the 
Magnefians,  the  exhortation  is,  "  Nei- 
ther do  ye  any  thing  without  the  Bifhop 
and  Prefbyters.''  And  again,  "  I  exhort 
you  to  do  all  things  in  the  concord  of 
Gcd."  What  is  that  ?  The  explanation 
follows  in  the  next  words,  Cf  the  Bifhop 
prefiding  in  the  place  of  Gcd,  and  the 
Prefbyters   in   the   place  of  the    apoftolic 

fenate." Ci  Let  nothing  divide  you,  but 

be  united  to  the  Biihop,  and  thofe  that 
prefide  among  you."  It  fhould  feem, 
from  thcle  paffages,  and  many  more  that 
rnight  eafily  be  mentioned,  it  there  was 
need  of  it,  as  plainly  evident  as  words  car* 
well  make  it,  that  the  Ignatian  churches 
were  governed,  not  by  the  Bifhop  only, 
but  by  a  common  college,  company,  or 
fenate,  of  which  he  was  the  firft  in  fu- 
periority.  If  nothing  was  to  be  done 
y/ithout  the  Bifhop  $    neither  was   any 

thing 


IGNATIUS.     307 

thing  to  be  done  without  the  Prefbyters. 
The  voice  of  the  Prefbytery  was  neceffa- 
ry,  as  truly  as  the  voice  of  the  Bifhop. 
Union  was  plainly  the  great  thing  Igna- 
tius had  at  heart,  and  would  promote  in 
the  management  of  all  church-affairs, 
not  only  between  the  church,  and  the 
Bifhop  ;  but  between  the  Bifhop,  and  the 
Prefbyters  ;  fuch  an  union  as  that  no- 
thing fhould  be  tranfacted  without  the 
Prefbyters,  any  more  than  without  the 
Bifhop.  His  aim  was,  that  there  fhould 
be  the  united  authority  and  confent  of 
both  Bifhops  and  Prefbyters,  in  the  cqu- 
jduft  of  every  church-affair. 


It  will,  probably,  be  flill  pleaded,  Ig- 
natius is  fo  careful,  in  ali  his  epiftles,  to 
diftinguifh  Bifhops  from  Prefbyters,  that 
we  do  not  once  find  him  calling  Prefby- 
ters, Bifhops  ;  or  Bifhops,  Prefbyters. 
Far  from  this,  he  has  always  appropriated 
thefe  names  to  different  perfons  ;  from 
whence  it  may  be  fairly  and  juftly  col- 
lefted,  that  Bifhops  were  a  diftinft  fet 
of  officers  in  the  government  of  the 
ftyurch  from  Prefbyters,  Qf  an  higher  order 

and 


3o8     IGNATIUS. 

and   vefted   with   fuperior   powers,  fuch 
as  might  not  be  exercifed  by  Prefbyters. 

It  is  granted,  the  names,  Bifhop  and 
Presbyter,  are  carefully  ufed,  in  the  Igna- 
tian  epiftles,  to  fpecify  different  perfons  ; 
but,  at  the  fame  time,utterly  denied,  that 
this  appropriation  of  thefe  names  imports 
fuch  a  diftinction  between  Bifhops  and 
Prefbyters,  as  is  contended  for  ;  that  is, 
a  diftin&ion  that  fuppofes  an  higher  and 
fuperior  order  of  officers  in  the  church 
to  that  of  Presbyters.  That  it  imports 
forne  degree  of  precedency,  or  fuperiority, 
is  readily  allowed  ;  but  why  fhould  it 
be  thought,  unlefs  to  ferve  the  epifcopal 
caufe,  that  this  fuperiority  was  a  fuperi- 
ority in  fuch  fpiritual  powers  as  might 
not  be  exercifed  by  Presbyters  ?  Ignati- 
us, as  we  (hall  fee  prefently,  has  faid  no 
fuch  thing  ;  nor  has  be,  in  any  of 
his  epiftles,  appropriated  any  one  of  the 
powers  proper  to  the  minifterial  office  to 
Bifhops,  in  diftindtion  from  Presbyters. 
Epifcopalians,  if  any  men  in  the  world, 
fhould  be  fenfible  of  the  infufficiency  of 
the  argument,  which  would  prove  a  dif- 
tin&ion  of  orders  in  the  church,  or  of 

ESSENTIAL 


I  G  NAT   I   U  S*     309 

essential  powers  in  its  officers,  from 
the  appropriation  of  different  names  to 
different  perfons,  even  though  it  was  an 
appropriation  that  carried  with  it  a  very 
confiderable  degree  of  precedency  and 
fuperiority.  There  are,  in  the  church 
of  England,  a  great  variety  of  officers, 
with  appropriated  names,  who  greatly 
differ  in  the  degree  of  their  fuperiotity  and 
inferiority;  while  yet,  their  effential  pow- 
eis,  as  officers  in  the  kingdom  of  Chrift, 
are  ,preci(ely  the  fame.  The  names,  Arch- 
Bifhop  and  Bifhop,  are  appropriated  ones, 
invariably  pointing  out  different  eccle- 
fiaftical  officers,  the  one  fuperior  in  dig- 
nity and  power  to  the  other  ;  and  yet, 
Arch-Biihops  are  the  fame  order  in  the 
church  with  Bifhops,  and  they  have  no 
higher  effential  powers.  To  fay  that 
they  have  would  make  four  orders  in 
the  church  of  Chrift,  inftead  of  three  ; 
which  would  be  a  flat  contradiction  to 
the  avowed  doftrine  of  the  church  of 
England  itfelf.  Deans,  Arch-Deacons, 
Prebends.  Redtors,  and  Curates,  are  all 
of  them  officers  in  the  Englifh  chtfrch, 
diftinguifhed  from  each  other  by  the  ap- 
plication of  thefe  names,  and   feverally 

placed 


3io     I   G'N   A  T  I   U   S.- 

placed  above  each  other  in  certain  degrees 
of  fuperiority  ;  and  yet,  they  are  all 
vefted  with  exactly  the  fame  effential 
powers.  In  regard  of  their  order,  they 
are  the  fame  officers  in  the  church.  In 
fpecial,  Re&or  and  Curate  are  appropria- 
ted names,  and  ftand  to  fignify  different 
officers  in  the  church,  the  one  fuperior 
in  dignity  and  power  to  the  other ;  while 
yet,  they  both  fuftain  the  fame  rank,  and 
are  perfedtly  equalin  the  intrinfic  inftitu- 
ted  powers  of  their  office.  The  Cuiate 
is  cpmmiffioned  to  preach,  baptife,  and 
adminifter  the  Lord's  fupper,  as  truly  as 
the  Reftor  3  and  may,  as  well  as  he,  per- 
form  any  other  part  of  duty  that  belongs 
to  this  order  of  officers  in  the  church. 
But  this  notwithstanding,  the  Re&or  is 
placed  in  as  high  a  degree  of  fuperiority 
above  the  Curate,  as  the  Ignatian  Bifhop 
is  above  a  Preitbyter.  The  Retf  or  may,- 
in  the  plenitude  of  his  own  power,  do 
any  thing,  within  the  limits  of  his  office, 
in  his  own  partfh  ;  the  Curate  can  do  no- 
thing but  by  his  permiffion.  lie  can 
neither  read  prayers,  preach,  baptife,  or 
perform  any  other  public  religious  fer- 
*ice,  but  in  confequence  of  his  confent- 

i-ng 


IGNATIUS;    31,1 

in ?  allowance.  He  is  in  truth  the  kr~ 
vant  of  the  Re£lor,  and  in ;  perfect  iubjec- 
tion  to  him;  yea,  liable,  unless  c^uite  iub- 
fervient  to  his  pleafure,  to.be  difmiiied' 
from  fervice  in  this  cure.  Wherein,  now, 
in  what  inftance,  was  the  Ignatian  Bi- 
fhop  more  ofafuperior  to '  his  Prefbyfrers  ? 
What  greater  power  had  he  over  them  ? 
i  may  rather  fay,  how  does  it  appear, 
that  he  either  had,  or  ever  exercifed,  fo 
high  a  degree  of  power  ?  The  Rector 
may  act,  in  his  own  pariah,  without  the 
advice  of  his  Curate  y  or,  fhould  he  con- 
defcend  to  afk  it,  he  may  act  in  direct  op- 
pofition  to  it.  It  was.  not  thtis  with 
the  Ignatian-Bifhop.  He,  with  the  Pref- 
byters  of  the  church/  made  one  common 
councillor  fenate  ;and  it  was, not  accor- 
ding to  his  own  fovereignty,'but  in  agree- 
ment with  the  united  voice  of  this  council, 
that  headed.  All  the  affairs  of  the  .church; 
were  managed  in  this  way.— The  Rec- 
tor:  may,  of  his  own  mter  arbitrary 
will,  difchargs  the  Curate  from  any  fur- 
ther fervice  in  his  parifh,  Jgnatius's  Bi- 
fhop  had  no  fuch  power.  Moft  certainly 
it  is  no  where  faid  that  he  had,  either  in 
V  spittles/'  or  tdfewhere.  Let  me 
S  f  afk; 


3i2     IGNATIUS, 

afk  now,  why  fhould  it  be  thought,  that 
the  lgnatian  Bifhop's  fuperiority  above  a 
Prefbyter  muft  import  a  Superiority 
of  order,  or  essential  powers,  any 
more  than  a  Rector's  Superiority  above 
his  Curate  fhould  import  the  fame  thing  ? 
If  a  llecloi's  office  h  essentially  the 
fame  with  his  Curate's,  notwithftanding 
his  fuperiority  in  power,  why  muft  it  be 
otherwife  in  the  cafe  of  Ignatius's  Bifhop  ? 
The  plain  truth  is,  all  the  pre-eminence 
and  fuperiority  that  Ignatius  afcribes  to 
his  Bifhop  may  as  eafily,  and  as  juftly,  be 
accounted  for,  without  the  fuppofition  of 
his  being  of  an  order  diftinft  from,  and 
fuperior  to,  Prefbyters,  as  the  Rector's 
fuperiority  above  his  Curate.  If,  notwith- 
standing the  fubjection  of  his  Curate  to 
him,  they  are  both  of  the  fame  order  in 
the  church,  and  partake  of  the  fame  ef- 
fential  powers  ;  why  may  not  the  lame 
foe  faid,  with  equal  truth  and  juftice,  of 
the  lgnatian  Bifhop  and  his  Prefbyters  ? 
Efpecially,  if  it  be  remembered,  and  duly 
confidered,  that  no  one  minifterial  pow- 
er is  mentioned  by  Ignatius,  in  any  of  his 
epiftles,  but  what  might  be  as  well  exer- 
eifed  by  Prefbyters  as  Bifhops.  And 
this-  leads  to 

The 


IGNATIUS.     313 

The  next  power  of  Bifhops,  faid  to  be 
diftinguifhing,    and   effential  ;    which   i& 
that  of  ordination.     And  who. could 
think,  confidering  the  vaft  labor  that  has 
been  expended  in  fupport  of  the  credit  of 
Ignatius's  epiftles,  and  the  perpetual   ufe 
Epifcopaltans    make  of  them,  in  defence 
of  their  caufe,  but  that  he   had  exprefled 
bimfelf,  upon  this  head,  io  clearly,   pofi- 
tively,   and  fully,  as  to  leave  no  further 
room  for  difpute,  at  lead,  whether  it  was 
a  fact,  in   his  day,  that  Bifhops,  and 
they  only,  communicated   holy  orders  ? 
Efpecially,  as  the  validity  of  gofpel-ad- 
miniftrations  is   made   to  depend  upon 
this   method  of  communication.      And 
yet,  weareas  much  at  a  lofs  for  evidence  in 
favor  of  this  article,  effentially  connefted 
with  the  yeiy  being  of  Chriftianity  itfelf, 
as  if  Ignatius  had  never  wrote  any  one 
of  his  epiftles.      He  can   no    more    be 
brought  as  a  witnefs  to  teftify  in  behalf 
of  EPiscoPAL-ORDTNTiTioN,    either   in 
point  of  fact,  or  right,  than  any  of 
his  predeceffbrs,  contemporaries,  or  fuc- 
ceffors  within  the  two  firtt  centuries.     By 
only  reading  Arch-Bifhop  Wake's  "trans- 
lation of  his  epiftles,"  one   would  not 

fufpeft 


3«4     IGNATIUS. 

fufpeft  he  had  fo  much  as  tranfiently  faid 
any  thing  that  looks  like  ordina- 
tion ;  but  this  he  may  have  done  in  his 
"epiftle  to  the  Magnefians,"  wherein  he 
tells  them,  f*  It  becomes  you  not  to  ufe 
your  BUhop  too  familiarly  upon  the  ac- 
count of  his  youth,  but  to  yield  all  re- 
verence to  him,  according  to  the  power 
of  God  the  Father  :  as  alio  I  perceive 
your  holy  Prefbyters'do  j  not  confidering 
his  age,  which  indeed  to  •  appearance  is 
j^toiff/'-p-'-T/hefe  laft  words  are  in  the 
original,  ten  phainomenen  neoteriken  tax  in  ; 
which  iorne  have  tranflated,  his  appearing 
jfjuthful  ordination.  *  If  this  is  a'  verfion 
that  gives  the  true  meaning  of  Ignatius, 
he  has  once,  in  (cv^n  epifties,  mentioned 
ordination  ;  but  without  faying,  how 
it  was  performed,  or  by  whom  ;  whether 
by  a  Eifliop  of  fome  other  church,  or  by 

the 


Thus  I  find  them  tranflated  by  Cotelerius,  in  Le  'Geres 
edition  of  his  "  apoftolical  Fathers."  His  words  are, 
"  appirentem  puerilem  ordinationem."  In  Arch-Bi- 
ihop  Ulnar's  publication  of  the  "  Ignatian  epifties,;* 
from  the  latin  copies  he  found  in  England,  the  verfion 
is,  "  apparentemjuniorena  ordinem  ;"  which  is  thought  to 
refer  to  his  being '*  veiled  with  holy  orders  while  apparent- 
ly a  young  man.'"  \  w  ill  not  qppofe  this  interpretation  of 
the  words,  being  willing  Episcopalians  ihould  make  tne 
xticfl  of  what  can  be  fuppofed  to  be  faid  by  Ignatius, 


IGNATIUS.     315 

the  Prefbyters  of  this  at  Magnefia.  The 
(hort  of  the  matter  is,  he  is  totally  filent, 
in  all  his  epiftles,  upon  this  moft  impor- 
tant and  effential  power  of  the  Bifhop  ; 
never  once  faying,  or  fo  much  as  insinu- 
ating, that  it  was  his  peculiar  right 
to  confer  holy  orders,  or  that  they  were> 
in  fact,  ever  conferred  by  Bifhops,  ia 
diftinition  from  Prefbyters, 

It  will,  perhaps,  be  pleaded  here,  Xg- 
natius  has  expreflly  faid,  «  it  is  not  law- 
ful without  the  Biftiop  to  baptife,  or 
make  a  love  feaft  ;"  and  again,  "  it  is 
neceflary  nothing  fhould  be  done  with- 
out the  Bithop."  If  fo,  then  furely  there 
ought  to  be  no  ordination  without  him, 
This  is  the  obvious  and  evident  implies 
tion  of  his  words. 

The  anfwer  is  plain  and  e^fy.  Should 
this  reafoning  be  allowed  to  be  juft  and 
valid,  it  will  not  follow  from  it,  that  the 
power  of  .ordination  was  appropriated  tp 
Bifhops,  any  more  than  the  administration 
of  baptifm,  or  nuking  a  love-feaft,  The 
moft  that  can  ba  made  of  it  is,  that  no 
church-affair  fhould  be  managed  without 

the 


3i6     I  G  N   A  T  I  U   S. 

the  confent,  the  prefence,  or  permif- 
fion  of  the  Bifhop  ;  but  with  his  allow- 
ance, for  aught  that  appears  to  the  con- 
trary, Prefbyters  might  ordain,  as  well 
as  baptife,  or  adminifter  the  Lord's  fup- 
per.  And  it  is,  with  me,  paft  all  doubt, 
that  the  affair  of  ordination,  as  truly  as 
other  religious  offices,  were  managed,  not 
by  the  Bishop  alone,  but  by  the  Pres- 
bytery, of  which  he  was  primus  inter 
pares.  For  Ignatius  is  as  exprefs  in  fay- 
ing, "  nothing  ought  to  be  done  with- 
out the  Presbyters,"  as  that  "  nothing 
pught  to  be  done  without  the  Bishop." 

The  laft  peculiar  power  of  Bifhops  is 
that  which  relates  to  confirmation. 
But  it  unluckily  happens,  that  the  "  Ig- 
natian  epiftles"  are,  if  poffible,  more 
filent  about  this,  than  the  foregoing,  ar- 
ticle. They  neither  mention  the  name, 
or  the  thing  intended  by  the  name. 
And  as  they  appear  to  be  utter  ftrangers 
to  any  fuch  cuftom  in  the  church  of 
Chrift,  as  that  of  confirmation,  it  would 
be  in  vain  to  look  to  them  for  evidence, 
that  it  belonged  to  Bifhops,  to  them  only, 
to  them  in  diftinciion  from  Prefbyters, 

to 


IGNATIUS.       317 

to  perform   this  extraordinary  piece  of 
fervice. 

Upon  the  whole,  notwithftanding 
Biihops  are  fo  often  mentioned  by  name 
by  Ignatius  ;  notwithstanding  the  high 
ftrain  of  language  in  which  he  fpeaks  of 
them;  notwithstanding  all  the  claims  he 
makes  for  them,  and  of  obedience  and 
fubje&ion  to  them  ;--- he  is  fo  far  from 
being  a  competent  witnefs  to  the  grand 
facts  we  are  upon,  that  he  either  fays 
nothing  relative  to  them,  or  that  which 
is  really  deftru&ive  of  them.  It  is  as  evi- 
dent as  words  can  well  make  it,  that  the 
Bifhops  he  fpeaks  of,  in  his  epiftles,  were 
of  the  parochial,  not  the  diocesan 
kind  :  from  whence  it  follows,  that  the 
Redtor,  Paftor,  or  Bifhop  of  a  single 
congregation  of  Chriftians,  fuch  an 
onejas  the  churches  in  New-England,  and 
the  Proteftant  Diffenters  at  home,  have  at 
their  head,  is  much  more  like  to  the  Ig- 
natian  Bifhop,  than  any  diocesan  in 
Great  Britain.  From  the  whole  tenor  of 
what  he  offers  upon  the  head  of  government 
it  alfo  moft  obvioufly  appears,  as  we  have 
&en,that  it  was,  and  ought  to  be,  manag- 
ed, 


3i&    IGNATIUS. 

ed,  not  by  the  Bifhop  as  sotE  Monarch 
in  the  church,  but  by  a  common  fenate, 
or  college,  of  which  he  was  nothing 
more  than  primus  inter  pares,  being  veil- 
ed with  no  higher  essential  ppwers' 
than  the  other  members  of  the  Prefby- 
tery.  And  as  to  ordination,  and  con- 
firmation, the  appropriated  right  of  Bi- 
fhops,  he  fays  not  a  word.  Could  we,  in 
confiftency  with  a  due  regard  to  truth, 
fay,  that  the  "  epiftles  of  Ignatius" 
were  unfufpedtedly  genuine  and  incorrupt,' 
we  fhould  be  as  ilrenuous  in  fupporting 
their  authority,  as  the  Epifcopalians  i 
and  for  this  reafoft  in  fpecial,  becaufe 
they  are,  in  many  refpe&s,  a  real  and  great 
fervice  to  our  caufe;  and,  in  every  refpeft, 
much  more  ferviceabletous,  than  to  them 
in  the  difpute  betwixt  us. 


PAPIAS. 


PAPIAS,  QUADRATUS, 
ARISTIDES,  AGRIP- 
PA,    HEGESIPPUS. 


PAPIAS,  Bilhop  of  Hierapolis,  a  city 
in  Afia,  is  faid  by  Irenaeus  to  have 
been  "  an  hearer  of  John,  and  compani- 
on of  Polycarp."  He  unqueftionably 
meant  by  John,  the  writer  of  the  gofpel, 
and  the  three  epiftles  under  this  name. 
Dr.  Cave  places  him  at  the  year  1 10  *  but 
he  is  faid  by  others,  equally  learned,  to 
have  flourilhed  about  the  years  115  and 
116.  He  has  fometimes  been  mentioned 
as  a  martyr  ;  but,  as  neither  Eufebiu* 
or  Jerom  fay  any  thing  of  this,  it  may 
be  confidered  as  a  fa£t  not  to  be  depend- 
ed  on.  The  time,  as  well  as  manner,  of 
his  death  is  uncertain.  Irenseus  and  Eu~ 
febius  both  fpeak  of  him  as  having  wrote 
4t  five  books"  entitled  "  the  explication 
of  our  Lord's  difcourfes  ;"  but  nothing 
remains  of  them  except  a  few  fragments 
T  t  prcfervcdt 


320        P    A    P    I    A    S. 

preferred   by  antlent  writers,     Eufebius 
defcribes  him,  in  one  place,  as  ".an   elo- 
quent man,  and  expert  in  thefcripture  ;"* 
though,  in  another,  -f  he  fays  of  him,  he 
had,  but  "  fmall  abilities,"  which,  as  he 
acids,  "  appears  from  his  books."      And 
fofaras  we  may  judge  from  thofe  parts 
of  them  that  have  been  handed  down  to 
us,  this  feems  to  bz  the  truth  ;  as  like- 
wife  that,  he  was  too  apt  to  give  heed  to 
any   pious    tales  that  were  reported  to 
him.     Eufebius  writes  of  him,  J  that  he 
has  "  told  ftrange   things,  pretending  to 
have  received  them  by  tradition  from  the 
Elders."     He  fpeaks  of  it  alfo  §  as  a  doc- 
trine of  his,  that  "  Chriftfhall  corporally 
reign  here  on  earth  for  the  fpace  of  a 
thoufand    years,    after   the   refurre&ion 
of  the  dead  ;  occafioning  divers  ecclefiafli- 
cal  perfons,  who   regarded  his  antiquity, 
to  fall  into  this  error  ;"  particularly  nam- 
ing "  Irenasus."  Du-pin, 

*  H.  E.  Lib.  3.  Cap.  35;.  Valefius,  in  his  note  here, 
-reprefents  this  encomium  to  have  been  an  interpolation, 
as  it  is  wanting  in  theverfion  of  Ruffinus,  and  in  three 
Greek  manufcripts  he  ufed  ;  and  becaufe  it  contradicts 
what  he  afterwards  fays  of  him.  Dr.  Grabe  labors,  in 
his  "  fpicilegium  patrum,"  to  take  off  the  force  of  this 
arguing  of  Valefius.  But  fo  far  as  I  am  capable  of  judg- 
ing, if  this  is  not  an  interpolation,  Eufebius  is  inatten- 
tively inconfiftent  with  himfelf. 
t  H.  E.  Lib.  3,  Cap.  39.    J  H.  E,  Ibid.    §  Ibid, 


P    A    P    I    A    S, 


321 


Du-pin,  as  I  imagine,  has  very  ju.ftly 
chara&erifed  Papias  in  the  following 
words  s— "  He  was  a  good  man,  but 
"  very  credulous,  and  of  mean  parts,  who 
"  delighted  much  in  hearing  and  telling 
"  ftorics  and  miracles."  He  adds,"  fince 
V  he  was  exceedingly  inquifitive,  and  in- 
*'  clined  to  believe  any  thing  that  was 
"  told  jhim,  it  is  not  to  be  admired  that 
*'  he  hath  divulged  diverfe  errors,  and 
u  extravagant  notions,  as  the  judgments 
"  of  the  Apoftles,  and  hath  given  us  fa- 
s<  bulous  narratives  for  real  hiftories  : 
"  which  fhews,  that  nothing  is  fo  dan- 
"  gerous  in  matters  of  religion,  as  light- 
"  ly  to  believe,  and  too  greedily  to  em- 
"  brace,  all  that  hath  the  appearance  of 
"  piety,  without  confidering  in  the  firft 
*'  place  how  true  it  is." 

No  mention  is  made,  in  the  preferved 
"  fragments"  of  Papias's  writings,  of  Bi- 
fhops;  nor  anything  faid  tending  to  illus- 
trate the  fact  we  are  upon,  unlefs  it 
fhould  be  thought  the  following  para- 
ges, cited  by  Eiifebius  in  the  39th  chapter 
of  his  3d  book,  may  be  improved  to  this 
purpofe. 


322       P    A    P    I    A    S. 

"  I  (hall  not  think  it  grievous  to  fet 
"  down  in  writing,  with  my  interpreta- 
*'  tions,  the  things  which  I  have  learned 
"  of  the  Elders  or  Prefbyteis,  [para  ton 
**  Prejbuferori]  and  remember  as  yet  very 
•'  well,being  fully  certified  of  their  truth  — 
M  If  I  met  any  where  with  one  who  had 
*  converfed  with  the  Elders,  [Pre/Bute- 
90  rot's]  I  enquired  after  the  layings  of  the 
"  Elders  ;  [Prejhuteron]  what  Andrew, 
*'  what  Peter,  what  Philip,  what  Tho- 
**  mas,  or  James  had  faid  ;  what  John,  or 
"  Matthew,  or  any  other  difciples  of  the 
•1  Lord  were  wont  to  fay;  and  what  Arif- 
•'  ton,  or  John  the  Prefbyter  [o  Prefbutt- 
"  ros]  faid  :  for  I  am  of  the  mind,  I  could 
"  not  profit  fo  much  by  reading  of  books, 
49  as  by  attending  to  thofe  who  fpakc 
«•  viva  voce." 

Eusebius  obferves,  in  this  fame  book 
and  chapter,  "  that  he  mentions  two 
Johns,  the  former  of  whom  he  ranks 
with  Peter,  James,  Matthew,  and  the  reft 
of  the  Apoftles,  "evidently  pointing  out 
theEvangelift;"  and  another  John,  whom 
hedoes  not  place  with  theApoftles,but  joins 
with  Arifton,expreffly  calling  him  Elder, 

tm     Prejhuteron" This     Papias,    as 

Eufebius 


P    A    P    I    A    S, 


3*3 


Eufebius  further  fpeaks,  declares  that "  he 
received  the  fayings  of  the  Apoftles  from 
thole  who  converfed  with  them  ;"  and 
that  he  was  »■•  a  hearer  of  Arifton,  and 

John  the  Prefbyter,  tou  Prefbuterou" 

He  adds,  in  the  fame  writing,  "  he  [this 
Papias]  delivers  many  other  narratives  of 
the  beforementioned  Arifton  concerning 
the  words  of  our  Lord,  and  traditions 
of  John  the  Prefbyter  [Pre/buterou.]  To 
which  we  fhall  fubjoin  a  tradition,  which 
he  has  concerning  Mark,  who  wrote  in 
the  gofpel,  in  thefe  words  ;  H  and  this, 
the  Prefbyter  or  Elder,  [Prejbutsros]  mean- 
ing John,  faid. — 

QUADR  ATUS.  Much  is  faid  of  this 
Father  by  writers  greatly  diftant  from 
the  age  in  which  he  lived.  He  is  par- 
ticularly fpoken  of,  in  the  martyrology 
of  the  Greeks,  as  "  a  man  of  great  learn- 
ing and  knowledge ;  and  reprefented,  af- 
ter having  grievoufly  fufFered  by  the  vio» 
lence  of  perfecutors,  as  one  that  received 
the  crown  of  martyrdom."  But  the  moft 
authentic  account  we  have  of  him  is  that 
which  is  given  us  by  Eufebius.  He 
ranks  him  among  "  the  famous  men  in 
the  reign  o^  Trajan,  who  died  in  117." 

He 


324    QUADRATUS. 

He  fpeaks  of  him  as  having  been  "  fa- 
vored, together  with  the  daughters  of 
Philip,  with  the  gift  of  prophecy.*'  He 
places  him  among  thofe,  who  were  "  in 
the  firft  fucceffion  of  the  Apoftles."  * 
And,  writing  concerning  Dionyfius  of 
Corinth,  he  introduces  this  Father,  fay- 
ing* ■+  "he  remembered  Quadratus,  who, 
after  the  martyrdom  of  Publius,  was 
conftituted  Bifliop  of  Athens."  It  is 
difputed,  whether  the  Bifliop,  here  point- 
ed out  by  this  Denyswas  the  perfon  we 
are  treating  of,  or  another  of  the  fame 
name.  The  Dofrors,  Grabe  and  Cave* 
are  fully  of  the  opinion,  that  it  was  our 
Quadratus.  J  Valefius  and  Du-pin  are 
as  clearly  of  the  contrary  mind  ;  and  for 
reafons,  as  it  appears  to  me,  that  cannot 
eafily  be  fet  afide.     § 

He  is  no  where  mentioned  as  having 
wrote  any  thing,  but  "  an  apology  for 
the  Chriftian  faith."  Eufebius's  account 
of  it  is  this  ;  || — "   When  Trajan  had 

reigned 

*  H.  E.  Lib.  3.  Cap.  37,      f  Ibid.  Lib.  4.  Cap.  23. 
J  "  Spicilegium  patrum,"  part  ii.  p.  125.    Lives  of  the 

Fathers,  vol.  i,  p.  133. 
§  Vid.  Valerius's  notes  upon  the  words  of  Dionyfius  of  Co  ■ 

rinth  ;  and  Du-pin's  note  (a)  in  his  life  of  Quadratus. 
||  H.  E.  Lib.  iv,  Chajv  3* 


•   0  U  AD  RATUS.    32$ 

reigned  twenty  years  wanting  fix  months, 

Elius   Adrianus    fucceeded   him    in    the 

empire,  to  whom  Quadratus  dedicated  an 

apology  which  he  had  wrote  in  defence 

of  the  faith,  as  certain    malevolent  men 

had  endeavored  to  vex  and  xnoleft    the 

Chriftians.       This    book   is    yet  extant 

among  diverfe  of  the   brethren,   and  a 

copy  of  it  remaineth  with  us  ;  in  which 

there  are  confpicuous  marks  of  the  un- 

derftanding,  and  true  apoftolic  doftrine 

of  the  man."     This  work  has  long  fince 

been  loft.      Only  one  fmall  fragment  of 

it  is  preferved,  in  which  there  is  nothing 

obfervable,   unlefs  it  be  that  he  fpeaks  of 

thofe  who  "  had  been  healed,  and  raifed 

from  the   dead,  as  living  not  only  while 

bur  Savior  had  his  abode  on  earth,  but  a 

long  time  after  his  afcention  3  yea,  anum- 

ber  of  them  to  his  day." 

ARISTIDES  flourifhed  about  the  fame 
time.  He  is  celebrated  byEufebius,  *  as 
"a  faithful  man,  and  one  that  labored  for 
the  furtherance  of  religion."  He  adds, 
"  he  publifhcd  an  "  apology"  (as  Qua- 
drat us  did  beforb)  for  the  "Chriftian  faith," 

with 

*  H.  E.  ibid,  ■ 


3a6     A  R  I  S  T  I  D  E  S. 

with  a  "  dedicatory  epiftle"  to  Adrian  the 
Emperor ;  which  book  of  his  is  kept  by 
many,  even  to  this  day."  And  it  was  in 
being  in  the  days  of  Jerom  ;  for  he  writes 
both  of  this  "apology,"  and  its  author,  in 
thefe  words;  "  Ariftides  was  an  eloquent 
Athenian  Philof9pher,  who,  when  he 
changed  his  religion,  did  not  alter  his 
profeflion.  •  He  prefented  unto  the  Em* 
peror  Adrian,  at  the  time  when  Qua- 
dratus  did,  a  volume  in  the  form  of  an 
"  apology,"  wherein  he  produced  the 
proofs  of  our  religion  ;  which,  being  fHll 
extant,  fhews  the  learned  how  excellent 
a  writer  he  was."  He  fays  again,  "  that 
this  work  was  full  of  philofophical  notions, 
and  that  it  was  afterwards  imitated  by 
Juftin."  It  has  long  been  buried  in  ob- 
livion. Dr.  Grabe  has  not  been  able,  in 
his  "  fpicilegium  patrum,"  to  gratify 
the  curious  with  fo  much  as  the  fmal- 
left  fragment  of  it. 

AGRIPPA,  firnamed  Caftor,  was  con- 
temporary with  the  above  Fathers.  His 
abilities,  as  a  learned  man,  and  his  zeal 
in  defending  the  truly  apoftolic  dodrine, 
are  faid  to  have  appeared  in  a  book  he 
wrote  againft  the  "  herefy  of  Bafilides/' 

which 


A    G    R    I    P    P    A.        327 

which  he  fully  confuted,  after  having  de- 
tected his  fraud.  The  b'eft  account  of 
him  is  handed  to  us  by  Eufebius,  who, 
(peaking  of  thoft  who  had.  contended  foe 
the  apoifolic  ecclefiaffica'l  doflrine,  makes 
mention  *  of  u  A-grippa  Caftor's  ftrong 
and  noble  confutation  of  Bafilides,  in 
which  he  difclofed  his  fraudulent  and 
deceitful  arts."  This  Ba'filidesy  as  he  goes 
on  to  relate  from  Agrippa,  "  had  written 
24  books  on  the  Gofpels,  and  that  he  for- 
ged feveral  Prophets,  who  were  never 
in  the  world,  to  whom  he  attributed 
extraordinary  names,  as  Barfabas  and. 
Barcoph,  on  purpofe  to  amufe  the  minds 
of  his  auditors.  He  affirmed  alfo,  that 
this  heretic  taught  his  followers,  "  that 
it  was  a  thing  indifferent  to  eat  facrifices 
that  were  offered  to  idols  £  that  it  was 
lawful  to  renounce  the  faith  in  a  time  of 
perfecution  ;  and  that,  in  imitation  of 
Pythagoras,  heimpofed  filenee  on  his  dif~ 
ciples  for  the  fpace  of  five  years."  There 
are  no  remains  of  fo  much  as  a  fingle 
fragment  of  Agrippa's  confutation  of  this 
wild  and  erroneous  writer. 
V  v 

HEGESIFPV3, 

*  R  E.  Lib-  iy.  Cap.  7, 


'  22$    H  E  G  E  S  1  P  P  U  S. 

HEGESIPPUS.  He  is  thought  to  havtf 
Been  a  convert  from  the  Jewifh  to  the 
Chriftiart*  religion.  Eufebius  ranks  him' 
among  the  firft  who  lived,  and  fiourifhed, 
after  the  death  of  the  Apoftles.  He 
/peaks  ofhimfelf,  *  a*s  having  been  in 
Rome  a  number  of  years,  Du-pin  fays,  from 
165  to  180.  He  is  the.fiift  Father  that 
compofed  an  entire  body  of  ecclefiafticai 
jliiftory.  This  fie  is  faid  to  have  done, 
dividing  it'  into  "  five  books,"  ftiled 
*"*'  commentaries"  by  Eufebius  and  Je- 
rorn  ;  wherein  he  relates  the  principal 
occurrences  in  the  church,  from  the  death 
of  (Thrift  to  his  own  time.  This  work 
was  penned,  according  to  Eufebius,  "  in 
a  fimple  ftile  ;"and,  as  Jerom  fpeaks,  "  ill 
imitation  of  the  manner  of  thofe  whofe 
lives  lie  wrote."  There  are  no  remains 
of  it,  but  fomc  fragments  preferved  by 
Eufebius  in  his  ecclefiafticai  hiftory,  and 
one  more  by  Photiusfrom  Stephen  Gobar. 

Some  have  greatly  lamented  the  lofs  of 
the  writings  of  this  Father  \  imagining, 
had  they  been  preferved,  we  fhould  have 
been   fully  certified  of  the  true  ftate  of 

the 

f  Eufeb.  H.  E.  Lib.  Iv.  Cap.  22. 


KEGESIPPUS. 


329 


the  church,  in  thofe  days,  particularly  as 
to  its  officers  and  government.  But  they 
might,  poflibly,  have  been  difap  pointed". 
His  account  of  James,  the  jull,  recorded 
by  Eufebius,  *  ,in  his  own  words,  evi- 
dently carries  with  it  the  air  of  a  fabulous 
romantic  ftory.  And  fome  of  the  men- 
tioned circumftances,  relative  both  to  his 
life  and  death,  are  far  from  exhibiting 
the  real  truth.  if  we  feiay  judge  from 
this  narrative,  the  world  has  not  fuffered 
much  by  the  lofs  of  his  worjis. 

Besides  the  five  boo1<s  beforemsn* 
tioned,  five  more  are  attributed  to  him  ; 
containing  u  an  hiftory  of  the  wars  of 
the  Jews,"  and  of  the  "  taking  the  city 
of  Jerufalem,"  which  have  been  often 
printed,  and,  among  other  places,  at  Co- 
len,  with  the  notes  of  Galterius.  But 
there  are  few  writers,  who  think  it  worth 
while  fo  much  as  to  mention  thefe  works, 
they  are  fo  evidently  of  the  fpuriouskind. 
Du-pin  fays,  "  It  is  certain,  they  do  not 
belong  to  Hegefippus  ;  and  has  given 
fuch  reafons,  in  fupport  of  this  aflertion, 
as  mufl  be  allowed  to  be  fufficient,  if  not 
more  than  fo,  by  all  capable  judges  in 
Clatters  of  thi$  nature. 

Tsz 

*  H.£.  Lib.  ii.  Cap.  24. 


33©    H  E  G  E  S  IP  P  US. 

The  two  following  extrafts  from  the 
u  fragments"  of  the  writings  of  Hege- 
fippus,  are  the  only  paflagcs  that  relate 
to  the  point  we  are  upon.  They  are 
taken  from  tjfie  iv'th  book,  and  22c!  chap- 
ter,  of  Eufebius's  ecclefiaftkal  hiftory. 

"  The  church  of  Corinth  remained 
u  pure  in  its  doctrine  to  the  time  of  Pri- 
fc  mus3  Bifhop  in  Corinth  :  with  whom 
f  I  familiarly  converfed  many  days,  while 
6i  failing  to 'Rome,  and  was  rrutch  com- 
"  forted  with  their  right  ciodhine.  Be- 
"  ingcometo  Rome,  I  abode  there  until 
"  the  fuccefiion  of  Anicetus,  or,  more 
if  literally,  until   I  made  the  fuccefiion  * 

as 


Dr.  Grate's  note,  upon  the  wofcfe,  diadoc:utn 
kpoiees  am'f.  en,  is  this  i  has  tiuas  voces  in  Eufebio 
per  incuri-im  five  ferine,  five  typoth"etaei  omifias, 
ex  nicephori  lib.  V:  hift.  ecclef.  cap.  17,  reituui." 
"  It  may  be  added,  Eufebius's  account  of  Hege- 
fippus's  going,  and  being  at  Rome,  as  given  in  his 
nth  chapter  of  this  fame  book,  does  not  perfectly  agree 
with  "what  is  faid'-here.  To  this  purpofe  Valeftis,  in  h's 
note,  has  thef;  words  ;  "  In  cap.  n,  hujus  ljbri,  ubiEu- 
febius  hunc  Hegeilppi  locum  adduxit  paulo  aliter  haec  re- 
feruntur.  Eterum  Eufehius  illic  fcribit,  Hegeiippum 
Jvomam  adventaffe  temporibus  Aniceti,  et  ufque  ad  pon- 
tincatum  Eleutherii  in  urbe  Roma  permaniiife.  Hege- 
fppus  tamen  in  hoc  loco  id  non  elicit :  fedtantum  ait,  fe 
R  ;m.«  manfnTe  ufque  ad  pontificatum  Aniceti.  Roftiatn 
ergo  venerat  Hegefippus,  fub  extrema  pii  tempora." 


H  E  G  E  S  I  P  P  U  S.    331 

c  as  far  as  Aniretus  ;  whofe  Deacon 
f  was  Eleutherius  :  Soter  fucceeded  him, 
(  and  after  him  Eleutherius.  In  all  the 
1  fuccefllon,  and  in  every  one  of  the  ci- 
*  tles,itisno  otherwife  than  the  law,  Pro- 
'  phets,  and  the  Lord  himfelf  preached.* 

"  When    James    the    juft    had    been 

c  martyred  for  the   fame  doctrine  which 

c  our  Lord  preached,  Simon,  the   fon  of 

c  Cleophas,  was  conftituted  Bifliop  with 

'  univerfal  preference,  becaufe   he   was 

'  the  Lord's  near  kinfman.     Wherefore 

c  they  called  that  church  a  pure  virgin, 

'  becaufe  it    was   not  defiled  with   cor- 

(  rupt  doftrine.      But  Thebuli,  becaufe 

1  he   was  not   made  Bifliop,   endeavored 

f  to  corrupt  the  church  ;  being  one  of  the 

c  feven  heretics  among  the  people,whereof 

'  was  Simon,  of  whom  the  Simonians." 

It  may  be  proper  to  remark,  upon 
thefe  paffages,  that  nothing  is  contained 
in  them  that,  either  direclly  or  implicitly, 
affirms  the .  fact  contended  for  by 
EpifGopalians.  They  will  not  pretend, 
that  the  powers  of  ordination,  con- 
firmation, or  government,  are  here 
appropriated  to  Bifhops,  or  faid  to  have 

been 


33*    HEGESIPPUS, 

been  exercifed  by  them,  in  diftinfliou 
from  Prefoyters,  either  by  cuftom,  or  di- 
vine right.  Mention  is  made,  it  is  true, 
of  Bifhops.  They  are  mentioned  alfo  in 
the  new-teftament-books  :  nor  was  it 
ever  denied,  that  there  were  Bifhops  iq. 
the  church,  even  from  the  beginning. 
The  difpute  js,  whaj:  is  their  rank,  or  or- 
der, in  the  church  ?  What  the  fpecial 
powers  they  are  vefled  with  ?  Not  a 
word  is  faid  by  Hegefippus,  in  the  abovp 
pafTages,  from  whence  this  can  be  col- 
lected; unlefs  an  argument  fhould  be  fetch- 
ed from  the  succession  in  the  church 
of  Rome,  of  which  he  here  fpeaks.  But 
to  argue  from  hence  would  be  to  little 
purpofe  ;  as  there  might  be  a  succes- 
sion of  Bishops  without  fyppofing  thern 
to  have  been  an  order  in  the  church  dif- 
tincl  from,  andfuperior  to,Prefbyters.~- 
We  (hall  have  occafion  largely  to  confi- 
der  the  "  argument  from  fucceffion,'* 
when  we  come  to  Irenaeus,  who  fays 
more  upon  this  head,  than  all  the  other 
Fathers  of  the  two  firft  centuries  put 
together.-— 


JUSTIN 


JUSTIN  MARTYR 


His   character,    writings,    and    te/iimonies 
Jrom  them%  with  obfervations  and  remarks. 


JUSTIN  the  Philofopher,  afterwards' 
the  Martyr,  was  born  in  Flavia  Nea- 
polis,  a  city  of  Samaria  in  Paleftine,  an- 
ciently called  Sichem,  and  in  our  Savior's 
day  Sichar.  He  accordingly  fpeaks  of 
himfelf  as  a  Samaritan,  in  his  "  diologue 
with  Trypho."  Neither,  fays  he,  "  did 
I  fear  to  offend  my  own  countrymen,  the 
Samaritans,  when  I  offered  my  apology 
to  Csefar."  His  father,  whofe  name  was 
Prifcus,  fon  of  Bacchius,  took  early  care' 
to  have  him  well  educated  ;  and,  being 
of  an  inquifitive  ftudious  turn,  he  foon 
made  himfelf  matter  of  the  philofophy  of 
that  day,  in  all  its  various  inftitutions  ; 
of   which    his  writings  give  abundant 

proof. 


334    JUSTIN   MARTYR. 

proof.  He  is  called  one  of  the  mofl  lear- 
ned of  the  more  early  writers  of  the 
eaftern  church. 

..  In  his  younger  years,  probably  before 
his  convei  fion  to  Chriffianity,  he  travelled 
abroad  for  his  further  proficiency  in 
knowledge.  He  went  particularly  to 
Egypt,  "  the  ftaple-place,"  as  Dr.  Ca\c 
calls  it, of  all  the  inyfterioDsand  recondite 
parts  of  learning,  and  therefore  com- 
monly viftted  by  thofe,  who  would  make  a 
figure  in  the  world,  asAdept&s  in  Philolo- 
phy.  He  was  certainly  at  Alexandria  ; 
for  there  it  was,  as  he  himfel'f  informs  us, 
that  he  received  an  account  of  tfe  "  fe- 
venty's  tranflation"  of  the  Hebrew-bible, 
and  was  carried  to  the  "  cells"  in  which 
it  was  faidthey  performed  that  celebrated 
work  ;  which,  probably,  his  curioiiry, 
together  with  the  reports  he  might  have 
had  of  thefe  matters,  by  being  among  the 
Jews,  had  induced  him  particularly  to 
enquire  after. 

He  went  through  his  philofophica! 
ftudies  under  feveral  matters.  The  firfi: 
was  a  V  Stoic  -,"  the  iecond,  a  <(  Peripa- 
tetic •,"    the  third   a    "    Pythagorean    •* 

and 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  335 

and  the  laft  a  "  ^Platonift/*  whofe  fenti- 
merits  he  preferred,  and  indeed  was  io 
well  pleafed  with  that  he  ordered  his  con- 
duct by  them,  until  he  became  a  convert 
to  the  Chriftian  faith,  which  he  ever  af- 
ter efteemed  "  the  only  certain  and  ufe~ 
ful  philofophy." 

The  precife  time  of  his  converfion can- 
not be  afcertained.     Dr.  Cave,  and   Til- 
lemont  place  it  at  the  .year  132  or   133, 
But  whenever  he  was  converted,  the  ho- 
linefs  of  the  lives  of  Chriftians,   and  the 
firmnefs*  refolution,  and  undaunted  cou- 
rage, with  whichtbey  faced, and  encounter- 
ed, death  in  the  moft  hideous  forms,  had  a 
very  powerful  influence  in  effecting  this 
anchge  of  his  religion  :  fo  we  are  informed 
by  himfeif,  in  the  account  he  gives  of  it  to 
the  Roman  Emperor,  in  one  of  his  apo- 
logies.     Saysf'he,  *  "  For  my  own  part, 
"  being  yqt  detained  under  the  "  Plato- 
"  nic   inftittrtions,"   when    I   heard   the 
41  Chriftians    traduced   and   reproached, 
"  and  yet  faw  them   fearleflly   rufhing 
"  upon  death,    and  venturing  upoi\  all 
u  thole  things  that  are  accounted  moft 

"  dreadful 
X  x 

*  Apol.  I.  p,  50, 


336  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

«c  dreadful  and  amazing  to  human  na-^ 
"  ture,  I  concluded  with  myfelf,  it  was 
*'*  impoflible  that  thofe  men  ihould  wal- 
"  low  in  vice,  and  be  carried  away  with: 
6i  the  love  of  lnft  arid  pleafurc.  For 
"  what  man,  that  is  a  flave  to  pleafure 
<c  and  intemperance,  can  chearfully  bid 
"  death  welcome,  which  he  knows  muft 
*'  put  a  period  to  all  his  pleafures  and 
**  delights ;  and  would*  not  rather  by  all 
'*  means  endeavor  to  prolong  his  life  as 
*'  much  as  is  poffible,  and  to  delude  his 
"  adverfaries,  and  conceal  himfelf  from 
«*  the  notice  of  the  Magiftrate,  rather 
"  than  voluntarily  betray  and  offer  him- 
"  felf  to  prefent  execution  ?"—  His  rea- 
foning  here  is  certainly  juft  :  nor  is  it 
flrange,  that  fuch  extraordinary  ftrength 
of  mind  in  Chriftians  to  bear  up  under 
the  greateft  dangers,  and  undergo  the 
moft  cruel  fufferings.  and  deaths,  fhould 
give  him  favorable  thoughts  of  the  reli- 
gion they  profeffed,  and  the  truth  of 
which  they  fo  chearfully  fealed  with  their 
blood.  Marvellous  effects  have  been  pro- 
duced in  the  hearts  of  thofe,  who  have 
been  fpectators  of  the  horrid  cruelties 
which  have  been  exercifed  towards  the 
dffciples    of  Chrift,    and    the   amazing 

patience 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  337 

patience,  meeknefs,  fortitude,    and  fub- 
million,  with  which  they  endured  them. 

Having  profeffed  himfeif  a  Chriftian^ 
he  is  faid  to  have  led  an  eminently  vir- 
tuous and  holy  life.  It  is  certain,  he  flood 
up  nobly  in  the  Chriftian  caufe  ;  and  if 
ought  always  to  be  remembered  to  hiss 
honor,  that,  in  a  time  of  hot  perfecution, 
when  a  man's  only  owning  himfeif  to  be 
a  Chriftian  was  fufficient  to  expofe  him 
to  death,  he  fhould  be  able  to  put  on  re- 
folution  enough  to  become  an  advocate 
for  Chriftians,  a  public  pleader  of  their 
caufe  ;  as  he  appears  to  have  been  by 
his  two   "  apologies"  in  their  behalf. 

He  was  at  Rome,  in  the  reign  of 
*'  Antonine  the  pious,"  when  the  per- 
fecution  began  to  break  forth  ;  and  he 
then  wrote  an  excellent  "  apology"  in 
their  defence,  and  preferred  it  (as  ap- 
pears from  the  infcription)  to  "Antoninus 
Pius  the  Emperor,  and  to  his  two  fons 
Verus  and  Lucius,  to  the  fenate,  and  by 
them  to  the  whole  people  of  Rome." 
This  he  did  about  the  year  150,  faysDu- 
pin.  Tillemont  and  Dr.  Grabe  think 
it  was  not  prefented  before  this  year. 

Pr 


338  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

Dr.  Cave  fixes  the  time  at  140.  Pagi 
and  Bafnage  at  139  ;  whofe  opinion,  lays 
Dr.  Lardener,  "  appears  to  me  thetrueft, 
for  the  reafons  alledged  by  thofe  learn- 
ed men." 

This  <c apology  (fays  Du-pin)  is  com- 
?*  monly  called  \[\zfecond9  but  is  really 
€i  the  jirjl ,  whereas  the  other  common- 
Qt  ly  fo  called  is  aclually  t\\t  fecond ,  nay, 
"  if  we  may  give  credit  to  the  teftirjiony 
"  of  Eufebius,  was  not  prefented  to  the 
V  Emperor,  and  fenate,  until  the  time 
?c  of  .Marcus  Antoninus  the  Philofopher, 
•*  and  fucceflbr  of  Antoninus  Pius.''  In 
this  the  mod  learned  writers  are  now 
generally  agreed. 

What  Juftin  had  principally  in  view, 
In  this  "  apology"  was,  "  to  represent  the 
"  injuftice  of  the  proceedings  againft  the 
€<  Chriftians  ;  for  that,  without  any 
"  enquiry  into  the  true  merits  of  their 
<f  cafe,  they  were  adjudged  to  death  as 
the  moft  impious,  and  flagitious  of  all 
men  ;  only  their  being  called  by  the 
*'  name  of  Chriftians,  being  accounted 
"  fufficient  for  their  condemnation. —He 
"  justifies  them  againft   the    calumnies 

'  that 


c« 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  339 

ff  that  had  been  wickedly  caft  upon  them  j 
"  offering  what  was  abundantly  fuffi- 
«<  cient  to  clear  up  their  innocency.  He 
"  particularly  (hews,  that  they  were  not 
"  Atheijls,  as  they  had  been  charafterifedj 
f*  becaufe,  though  they  worshipped  not 
"  the  gods  of  the  heathen,  yet  they  knew 
M  the  true  God,  and  performed  that  fer* 
"  vice  which  was  agreable  tohim  :  alfo, 
<(  that  they  looked  not  for  an  earthly 
u  kingdom  (as  was  fufpedted  of  them, 
"  and  for  which  caufe  the  Romans  were 
u  fearful  of  their  rebellion),  but  one  that 
u  was  divine  and  heavenly,  on  which 
"  account  they  were  willing  to  run 
•c  the  hazard,  and  fuffer  the  lofs,  of 
"  this  prefent  life,  which  they  never 
"  could  do,  were  they  poffefled  with  de- 
?  fires  of  reigning  in  this  world.  He 
€f  likewife  wipes  off  thofe  blafphemies 
"  wherewith  the  Chriftians  were  load- 
"  ed  for  their  worfhipping  a  *?  crucified 
"  man,"  by  fuch  as  were  altogether  ig- 
"  norant  of  the  myftery  of  the  crofs  of 
"  Chrift  ;  fhewing  that  the  religion  of 
"  fuch  as*  worfhipped  the  gods  was  but 
'*  a  vain  and  fordid  fuperftition.  He, 
u  moreover,  largely  difcourfes  of  Chrift, 
"  unfolds  many  things  relative  to  his 

"  fufFering 


34o  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

M  fuffering  on  the  crofs,  and  by  convino 
"  ing  arguments  proves  the  truth  of  the 
w  Chriflian  faith  -,  not  forgetting  to  re- 
"  prefent  the  harmlefs  lives  of  Chriftians, 
"  their  exa6l  obfervance  of  chaftity,  pa- 
"  tience,  peaceablenefs,  gentlenefs,  and 
"  love,  even  to  their  very  enemies.  In 
"  fine,  he  lays  before  them  the  manner 
<c  of  Chriftians  in  their  celebration  of  the 
"  facred  rites  of  baptifm  and  the  Lord's 
"  fupper,  and  their  other  obfervances  $ 
cc  which  he  chofe  to  do,  becaufe  of  the 
«c  bafe  {landers  that  had  been  railed,  and 
"  fcattered  abroad,  concerning  them  ^ 
«  as  if  horrible  and  abominable  things 
«  were  pradtifed  by  them  in  their  fecret 
"  meetings  upon  fiich  occafions."  The 
"  apology"  is  wrote  with  a  freedom  and 
boldnefs,  becoming  a  ferious,  zealous,  and 
powerful  advocate  irt  pleading  the  caufe 
of  truth  and  righteoufnefs.  And  it  had 
its  defired  fuccefs.  For  the  Emperor, 
moved  by  this  apology,  as  well  as  by 
other  notices  he  had  received,  gave  order 
that  the  Chriftians  henceforward  fhould 
be  treated  in  a  regular  and  more  gentle 
way  -,  as  appears  from  his  "  epiftle  to 
the  commonality  of  Afia,"  preferved  by 
Eufebius,  in    the  ivth  book,  and    13th 

chapter 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  34i 

chapter  of  his  ccclefiaftical  hiftory,  by 
Juftin  himfelf  in  his  fecond  apology,  and 
from  them,  by  other  writers.  The  En- 
glifll  reader  may  meet  with  it,  in  a  lan- 
guage he  underftands,  in  Dr.  Cave's 
lives  of  the  Fathers. 

The  "  fecond  apology,"  fome  few 
femcnces  of  which  are  loft,  does  not  com- 
prehend fuch  variety  of  matter  :  it  is  a 
complaint  or  remonftrance  directed  to 
theEmperor,reprefenting  the  injuries  that 
were  unjuftly  offered  to  the  Chriftians  $ 
and  making  anfwer  to  the  things  objeft- 
ed  againft  them.  In  this  "  apology,"  he 
defcribes  the  fnaresthat  were  laid  for  him 
by  a  certain  Cynic  Philofopher,  named 
"  Crefcens,"  through  whofe  procurement 
he  expe&ed  to  fufFer  death.  "  I  expe£t, 
({ays  he)  by  fome  of  thofe  who  falfely 
call  themfelves  Philofophers,  to  be  be- 
trayed, or  brought  to  the  (lake  or  tree  fit 
may  be  by  this  Crefcens,  a  lover  of  popular 
applaufe,  and  of  infolent  arrogance;  a  man 
unworthy  to  be  called  a  Philofopher,  be- 
caufe  he  publicly  witneffes  the  things 
which  he  knoweth  not,  as  if  the  Chrif- 
tians were  atheiftical  and  impious  ;  and 
all  to  be  in  favor  with,  and  pleafe,  thp 
multitudes  whom  he  hath  deceived,"    It 


345  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

It  was  not  long  before  it  happened 
according  to  what  he  had  fuggefted.  For 
we  are  told,  by  Tatian,  a  difciple  of  Juf- 
tin,  that  this  fame  "  Crefcens"  procured 
his  death,  which  he  fufFered,  fays  Du- 
pin,in  the  fixth  year  of  the  reign  of  Mar- 
cus Antoninus,  the  Philofopher  ;  that  is, 
in  the  year  of  Chrift  166.  Dr.  Cave 
fays,  in  164.  Tillemont,  in  167  or  168. 
Fabricus  fuppofes  he  was  born  in  89, 
and  fuffered  martyrdom  in  the  74th 
year  of  his  age,  A.  D.  163.  Dr.  Grabe 
is  of  thefame  opinion  as  to  the  time.,  both 
of  his  birth,  and  death. 

His  name  is  often  mentioned  with  ho- 
nor by  the  ancientChriflian  writers.  Ta- 
tian calls  him  "  an  admirable  man." 
Methodius  fays,  "  he  was  not  far  re- 
moved from  the  Apoftles  in  time,  or 
virtue".  Eufebius  mentions  him  as  one 
that  was  "  famous,  not  long  after  the 
Apoftles,  an  embracer  of  the  true  philo- 
fophy,  and  well  ftudied  and  exercifed  in 
the  dodlrine  of  the  Gentiles."  Photius 
fays,  "  he  was  well  acquainted  with  the 
Chriftian  philofophy,  and  efpecially  with 
the  heathen  ;  rich  in  the  knowledge  of 
hiftory,   and    other'    parts   of   learning. 

But 


JUSTIN   MARTYR.   3 


Bat  he  took  little  care  to  fet  off  the  native 
beauty  of  philofophy  with  the  ornaments 
of  rhetoric.  For  which  reafon,  his  dif- 
courfes,  though  weighty  and  learned,  want 
thofe  allurements  which  are  apt  to  attra6t 
the  vulgar/'  He  adds,  "  He  (hewed 
himfelfa  Philoibpher  not  only  in  words, 
but  in  his   anions,  and  his  habit,  * 

His  Writings, 

THE  writings  afcribed  to  Juftin  are 
numerous.  But,  as  his  "  firft  apology," 
of  which  we  have  already  taken  notice,  is 
the  only  work  of  his  we  fliall  have  oc- 
cafion  to  tranfcribe  from,  I  fliall  barely 
Y  y  infert 

*  Says  Dr.  Cave,  "  Though  he  laid  afide  his  former  profef- 
lion,  he  ftill  retained  his  ancient  garb,  preaching  and  de- 
fending (as  Eufebius,  and  Jerom  report)  the  Chriftiau 
religion  under  his  old  "  philofophic"  habit,  which  wa« 
the"  pallium,"  or"  cloak,"  the  ufual  badge  of  the 
Greek  Philofophers,  and  which  thofe  Chilians  ftill 
kept  to,  who,  before  their  con ver lion,  haa  been  pro- 
felfed  Philofophers.  So  jerom  tells  us  of  Ariitides., 
the  Athenian  Philofopher,  that,  under  his  former  habit, 
he  became  Chrift's  difciple  ;  and  Origen  of  Heraclas, 
afterwards  Biihop  of  Alexandria,  that,  giving  himfelt 
up  to  the  more  (trifi  ftudy  of  philofophy,  he  put  on  the 
philofophic  habit,  which  he  coiiitantly  wore,  even  after 
he  became  Preibyter  of  the  Chriftian  church."  This 
long  continued  a  cuitom  ;  and  might  perhaps  give  rife 
to  that  distinction  of  habit,  that  has  prevailed,  through 
fo  many  ages,  among  the  feveral  orders  in  the  Roman 
church. 


344  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

infert  a  catalogue  of  what  he  has  wrote, 
lead  I  lTiould  take  up  more  room  about 
that  which  is  not  direcrly  to  our  purpofe, 
than  can  be  well  fpared. 

His  works  may  be  diftinguifhed  into 
thofe  that  are  ftill  extant,  and  held  to  be 
genuine  ;  thofe  that  are  loft,  and  fome  of 
them  of  doubtful  authority  ;  and  thofe 
that  are  (uppofititious,  but  moftly  yet 
remaining.  We  fhall  diftinclly  enu- 
merate them  under  thefe  claffes. 

Genuine  and  extant. 

f<  Paran^esis,"  or  an  exhortation  to 
the  Gentiles.  "  Elenchus,"  an  oration 
to  the  Greeks.  "  Two  apologies"  in 
behalf  of  Chriftians.  A  book  concern- 
ing the  "  Monarchy  of  God."  A  "  di- 
alogue with  Trypho,"  the  Jew.  An 
4t  epiftle  to  Diognetus." 

Lost  and  in  part  doubtful. 

A  "  discourr  againft  all  herefies,  and 

againft  Marcion."     "  Two  books  againft 

the  Gentiles."      A  "  commentary  on  the 

.  hexameron^ 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  345 

hexameron."      A  book  called  *  pfaltes."' 
Another    concerning  "  the  foul/*  a  fco- 
liftical  difcourfe.      A   "  commentary  on 
the  apocalypfe."   An  "  epiftle  ad  paparn  ^ 
A  "  difcourfe  on  the  refurre£tion«" 

Supposititious, 

r 

A  book  "  de  monarchia."  An  "  ex- 
pofition  of  the  true  faith  concerning  the 
trinity."  A  "  confutation  of  certain  arif- 
totelian  opinions. "  "  Qneftions  pro- 
pounded by  the  Chriftians  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  their  anfwers  to  them,  with  a 
confutation  of  them."  "  Certain  ques- 
tions propounded  by  the  Greeks  to  the 
Chriftians,  with  the  anfwers  of  the  Chrif- 
tians." "  The  anfwers  to  one  hundred 
and  forty-fix  queftions  ad  orthodoxos." 
*l  Summary  folutions  of  doubts  refpeft- 
ing  religion/' 

Pertinently  juft  is  the  remark  of 
Hanmer,  having  fpoken  of  thefe  fuppofi- 
titious  works  of  Juftin  ;  "  Upon  how 
frail  a  foundation  are  thofe  unfound 
do&rines  of  the  Papifts  built  (for  the 
proof  of  which  thqfe  fpurious  writing* 
are  often  alledged)   namely,  the  lawful 

ufe 


346  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

ufe  of  the  crofs,  the  Virgin  Mary  with- 
out fin,  keeping  and  worfhipping  of  re- 
Iiques,  the  ufe  of  Crifm,  ceremonies  of 
the  mafs,  and  that  confirmation  is  a  fa- 
crament  ft* 

I  shall  only  add  concerning  this  Fa- 
ther, that,  though  he  appears  to  have 
been  a  man  of  considerable  learning,  and 
very  converfant  with  the  fa c red  writings, 
yet  his  reafoning  fometimes  will  not  bear 
being  clofely  examined  ;  nor  are  his  in- 
terpretations of  the  fcripture  always  fuch, 
as  would  be  admired  in  this  age  of  the 
world.  He  does  not  feem  to  have  been 
ftudious  of  art  in  fetting  off  his  difcour- 
fes.  His  manner  is  more- like  a  rigid 
Philofopher,  than  an  eloquent  orator.  He 
is  often  dry,  and  fometimes  obfeure.  Nor 
would  it  do  him  wrong,  ihould  it  be  faid, 
that  he  was  not  without  defeat  as  to  his 
religious  fentiments.  His  notion  of  the 
"  millenium"  was  too  grofs  and  carnal. 
His  conceit,  "  that  fome  of  the  finning 
angels  had  too  free  communication  with 
women  ;  begetting  Daemons,  and  intro- 
ducing by  this  means,  all  kind  of  wick- 
ednefs  among;  men/-  is  quite  extravagant. 
He  may  be  thought  to  have  leffened  the 

izlorious 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  347 

glorious  efficacy  of  the  crofs  of  Chrift  by 
declaring,  "  that  they  that  lived  accord- 
ing to  the  principles  of  natural  reafon, 
as  Socrates,  Heraclitus,  and  others,  might 
be  called  Chriftians."  He  feems  indeed 
to  fuppofe,  they  were  "  faved  by  having 
lived  up  to  the  law  of  nature."  This  no 
meer  man  ever  yet  did  ;  for  which  rea-  -€3 
fon,  whoever  are  faved,  muft  be  faved; 
upon  the  foot  of  grace  through  Chrift  : 
and  in  this  way,  why  fhould  it  be  thought 
incredible,  that  fome  among  the  heathen 
may  have  been  faved  ;  though  they 
knew  not  the  plan  upon  which  they  ob- 
tained mercy  ? 

I  have  not  mentioned  thefe  imper- 
fections of  this  venerable  Father  to  dis- 
cover his  nakednefs,  but  to  make  it  ma- 
nifeft,  that  the  infpired  writings  only  are 
exempt  from  error  and  defeat,  and  that 
thofe  of  the  moil  eminent  men,  how- 
ever ancient,  are  to  be  read  with  caution, 
examined  by  the  only  touch-ftone  of  re- 
ligious truth,  the  perfe6l  and  unerring 
word  of  God,  and  approved  of  fo  far  only 
as  they  are  found  to  agree  herewith.  By 
this  rule  we  muft  "  try  the  fpirits  whether 
they  be  of  God,"  "  holding  faft"  that 
only  wjiich  we  have  u  proved  to  be  good." 

Testimonies 


348  JUSTIN  MARTYR, 

Testimonies  from  Justin. 

Apol.  I.  p.  95.— "We  bring  him  that 
is  perfuaded,  and  agrees  with  us  in  his 
fcntiments,  to  the  place  where  the 
brethren,  fo  called,  are  assembled  for 
common  prayers  both  for  themfelves,  the 
baptifed  [illuminated,  tou  photisthentos] 
perfon,and  all  others  every  where  ;  which 
prayers  we  perform  with  an  intenfemind, 
that  we  may  be  counted  worthy,  and  may 
be  laved  with  an  everlafting  ialvation. 
Prayers  being  ended,  we  mutually  falute 
one  another  with  a  kifs.  Bread,  and  a 
cup  of  water  and  wine,  are  then  brought 
to  the  President  of  the  brethren 
[to  proejioti  ton  adelphon  :]  and  he,  receiv- 
ing them,  offers  [fends  up]  praife  and 
glory  to  the  Father  of  all  things,  through 
the  name  of  the  Son,  and  the  holy  Spirit : 
and  he  is  long  in  giving  thanks,  for  that 
we  are  thought  worthy  of  thefe  bleflings. 
When  he  has  ended  prayer,  and  giving 
of  thanks,  the  whole  people  prefent  fig- 
nify  their  approbation,  by  faying,  amen. 
Amen,  in  the  Hebrew  language  means, 
"  let  the  thing  be,  or  come  to  pafs."  The 
Prefidcnt  having  given  thanks  [eucharifte* 
fanio $  ton  proe/lotss,]  and  the  whole  peo- 
ple 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  349 

pie  having  exprefTed  their  approbation, 
thofe  that  are  called  among  us  Deacons 
[Diakonoi]  distribute  to  every  one  of  thofe 
that  are  prefent,  that  they  may  partake 
of  the  bread,  and  wine  and  water,  for 
which  thanks  has  been  given ;  and  to  thofe 
that  are  not  prefent,  they  carry.  This  ali- 
ment is  called  among  us  the  eucharist, 
which  no  one  may  lawfully  partake  of, 
but  he  that  believes  thofe  things  to  be 
true,  which  have  been  taught  by  us,  and 
has  been  waflied  in  the  laver  that  is  for 
the  remiffion  of  fins,  and  regeneration  ; 
and  fo  lives  as  Chrift  has  delivered." 

Apol.  ib.  p.  97.  "  And  upon  Sunday, 
all  thofe  who  live  in  cities  and  country- 
towns  or  villages  belonging  to  them, 
meet  together,*  and  the  writings  of  the 

Apoftles 

*  The  author  of  rt  an  original  draught  of  the  primitive 
church,"  in  anfwer  to  the  author  of  the  "  enquiry  into 
its  conftitution,"  takes  notice  of  this  pafiage  as  quoted 
only  in  p.  17  of  the  "  enquiry  ;"  where  the  words  are, 
*•  on  Sunday  all  afTemble  together  in  the  fame  place," 
leaving  out,  "  throughout  cities  and  countries  :"  upon 
which,  the  writer  of  the  "  draught"  triumphantly  fays, 
p.  44,  "  Why  do  we  think  he  left  out  thefe  words, 
"Svhich  were  in  the  middle  of  the  fentence  ?  Why  ?  Be- 
caufe  thofe  words  of  the  holy  Martyr  would  undeniably 
fhew  it  to  be  a  general  account  of  Chrift ian  practice,  in 
all  places  of  the  Chriftian  world  ;  whereas  our  enquirer's 

bufinefs 


550  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

Apoftles  and  Prophets  are  read,  as  the 
time  will  allow.  And  the  Le&or  being 
filent,  the  President  [o  Proeftos]  ad- 
monifhes,  and  exhorts  to  an  imitation 
of  thofe  things  that  are  comely.  We 
then  all  in  common  rife  up,  and  pour 
out  prayers.  And,  as  we  have  related, 
prayers  being  ended,  bread  and  wine  and 
water  are  brought,  and  the  President 
[o  Proe/los,]  as  above,  gives  thanks  ac- 
cording to  his  ability  ;  and  the  people 

fignify 

bufinefs  was  to  make  it  a  particular  inftance  of  a  firigle 
Bilhop's  diocefs,  and  that  all  the  members  of  it,  both  "  in 
city  and  country,"  met  in  one  and  the  fame  place  toge- 
ther at  once  ;  and  if  it  were  fo,  then  **  cities  and 
countries,"  in  the  plural  number,  would  be  too  much  for 
him  :  for  if  they  proved  any  thing  in  that  fenfe,  they 
would  prove  that  f*  cities  and  countries,"  indefinitely 
taken,  wherever  there  were  any  Chriitians  in  them,  met 
Al  together  every  Sunday,  and  made  but  one  congrega- 
tion." But  if  this  remarker  had  turned  his  readers,  as 
he  would  have  done,  had  he  adted  a  fair  part,  to  p.  42  of 
the  "  enquiry,"  he  would  at  once  have  made  it  glaringly 
evident,  that  the  anfivcr  he  his  here  given  was  nothing 
to  the  purpofe.  For  the  palTage  in  Juiiin  is  here  Li- 
ferted  to  the  full,  both  in  the  original  Greek,  .^nd 
an  Englilh  translation.  The  words,  as  quoted  in  Greek, 
are  thefe,  ' '  T  e  e  t  o  u   kki.ioulf.gomi  n  e  k  e  e  - 

MF.RA,  PANTON  RATA  POLK1S  El".  Ai.KOUS  M  >  > 
KONTON    EPI   TO    AUTO   S  U  N  E  LK  US  IS  G  I N  ET  AJL   ;" 

the  very  words  quoted,  by  our  remarker,  in  correction 
of  p.  17  of  the  "  enquiry."  And  the  Englifh  tranlla- 
tion  of  thefe  words,  in  this  43d  p.  of  the  "  enquiry,"' 
is  the  fame  Wftfc  fh  er  himfelf  his  giveh  of 

them* 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  35t 

fignify  their  approbation,  faying,  amen. 
Distribution  and  communication  is  then 
made  to  every  one  that  has  joined  in  giv- 
ing thanks  ;  and  to  thofe  that  are  abfent 
iris  fentby  theDEACONs.  Andthofethat 
are  wealthy,  and  willing,  contribute  ac- 
cording to  their  pleafure.  What  is  col- 
lected, is  depofned  in  the  hands  of  th£ 
the  Prefidcnt  [para  to  Proejioti,]  and  he 
Z  z  helps 

them,  only  inftead  of  "  cities  and  countries/'  the  (i  en* 
quiry"  has  it,  "  in  city  and  country,"  But  who  does 
not  at  once  fee,  that,  conformably  to  the  fentiment  of 
Juftin,  it  is  perfectly  indifferent,  whether  his  words  are 
tranflated  "  cities  and  countries/'  or  '*  city  and 
country  r"  The  word  agros  may  properly  be 
taken 'to  fignify  that  part  of  a  country  which 
Is  adjacent  to  fome  city,  whofe  towns  or  villages 
belong  to  it.  The  "  enquiry"  might  understand  the 
word  in  this  fenfe  ;  fuppoimg  that  Juftin's  meaning 
waso  that  all  the  Chriftians,  whether  they  lived  in  a  city, 
or  fome  village  in  the  country  near  to  it,  and  a  territo- 
ry of  it,  aiiembled  together  every  Sunday.  And  in  this 
fenfe  of  .the  word,  agros,  it  is  precifely  the  fame 
thing,  whether  the  tranflation  be,  "  in  cities  and  coun- 
tries," or  "  in  the  city  and  country."  And  the  fame 
may  be  faid,  fhould  we  fuppofe,  with  our  remarker,  that 
the  thought  Juftin  intended  to  communicate,  was,  tkat 
all  the  Christians  in  the  Roman  empire,  or  elfeuhere, 
/  throughout  the  world,  "  in  citiesor  countries,-  aifembled 
together  on  Sunday  ;    for  he  mult  mean,  not  in  on! 

BODY,  but    in    DISTINCT    CONGREGATIONS.       And 

if  they  thus  aflembled,  it  muft  be  epi  to  auto,  "  in 
the  fame  place,"  that  is,  not  the  whole  complex  body, 
but  each  part  of  which  that  body  did  confiit.  This, 
without  doubt,  was  the  meaning  of  Juftin,  and  of  the 


35s  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

helps  the  orphans,  and  widows,  thofe  that 
are  in  want  by  reafon  of  ficknefs,  or  any 
other  caufe  ;  thofe  that  are  in  bonds,  and 
that  come  ftrangers  from  abroad.     He  is 

the 


author  of  the  "inquiry/'  in  the  words  he  has  quoted 
from  him.  And,  in  this  view  of  them,  they  are  a  clear 
and  ftrong  proof  of  what  they  were  introduced  to  make 
evident  ;°which  was,  that,  in  Juftin's  day,  according  to 
his  account,  theBifhop's  charge  whs  a  hngle  congregation 
of  thrift  ians,  who  ufually  atiembkd  together  on  Sunday, 
69  met  in  the  fame  place,  for  the  .performance  of  thofe 
religious  fervlces  he  particularly  relates.  And  they  are 
as  exprefs  and  full  to  the  purpofe,  as  could  be  deiired  ; 
especially  if  it  be  remembered;  that  thefe  religious  af- 
femblies  are  directly  fpoken  of  by  Juftin,  as  having  each 
cf  riiem'  their  Prafes,  Bilhop,  Paft  or,  Prime- Preibyter, 
or  whatever  other  name  any  may  pleafe  to  give  him  ; 
who,  when  the  Chriftians  were  thus-  together  in  their 
feveral  places  of  worfhip^  preached  to  them,  adminiftered 
the  facraments,  and  did  whatever  elfe  was  proper  to  his 
office,  atfuch  times.  This  is  certainly  Juftin's  reprefen- 
tation  of  the  matter,  unlefs  "  all  the  Chriftians, 
throughout  cities  and  countries,"  met  together  every 
Sunday,  in  one  general  body;  which  our  re- 
marker  juftly  fays  is  "  too  much"  to  be  his  meaning  : 
nor  could  it  pollibly  be  the  truth  of  fact.  And  it  is  moft 
obvioufly  remarkable,  not  a  word  is  faid,  or  diftantly 
hinted,  as  if  there  was  any  officer  in  the  Chriftiari 
church  fuperlor  to  thefe  Prelidents,  or  that  any  of  them 
acted  under  him,  as  placed  at  their  head  ;  which  muft  be 
deemed  an  unpardonable  omiifion  in  Juftin,  if  there  had 
been>  in  his  day  >  fuch  an  ecclefiaftical  officer  :  efpecially 
if  it  be  considered,  that  he  was  now  writing  to  the  "  Em- 
peror, the  fenate,  and  the  whole  body  of  the  Roman  peo- 
ple," on  purpofe  to  give  them  a  fair  and  impartial  ac- 
count of  the  nature,  derign,  and  tendency  of  the  meeting 
together  of  Chriftians,  with  thofe  who  had  the  fuperm* 
tendency  of  their  religious  atf  airs. 


*     JUSTIN  MARTYR.  353 

the  kind  guardian  of  all  that  are  in  want. 
We  all  assemble  on  Sunday,  becaufe 
God,  difpelling  the  darkneis,  and  inform- 
ing the  firft  matter,  created  the  world  ; 
and  alfo  becaufe,  upon  that  day,  Jefus 
Chrift  ourSavior  rofe  from  the  dead.  For 
the  day  before  Saturday  he  was  crucified, 
and  the  day  after  it,  which  is  Sunday,  he 
appeared  to  his  Apoftles  and  difciples, 
and  taught  them  thofe  things,  which  we 
have-now  related  to  you,  and  ye  yourfelves 

may  fee." 

Observations. 
ONE  can   fcarce   read   the  foregoing 
paffages,   and  not  take  notice  of  the  un- 
adulterated manner  in  which  gofpel-ordi- 
nances  are  reprefented  to  have  been  ad- 
miniftered  in  that  day.     Nothing  is  faid 
of  thofe  ceremonies  and  fuperftitious  ad- 
ditions, which,  in  after  times,were  brought 
in,  and  obferved,  to  the  difhonor  of  God, 
the  difturbance  of  the  church,  and  de- 
fpoiling  the  ordinances  themfelves  of  their 
native  purity  and  fimplicity,  in  which  they 
appeared  with  a  glory  infinitely  fuperior 
to  that,  which*  men  have  vainly  endea- 
vored, by  mixtures  of  their  own  invention* 
to  put  upon  them.     Thefe,  in  truth,  have 
deformed,  not  adorned  them.— But  to 
come  nearer  to  the  point  in  hand,        Ir 


354  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

It  will  ohvioufly  be  perceived,  by  a 
cuifory  reading  only,  that  no  evidence  can 
be  collected,  from  thefe  teftimonies,  in 
favor  of  the  fact  pleaded  for  by  Epif- 
copalians.  Not  fp  much  as  the  word, 
Bilhop,  is  to  be  found  in  them.— Not  a 
Syllable  is  lifped,  importing  a  threefold 
order  of  officers  in  the  church,  Bifhops, 

Preibyters,   and  Deacons. No  infinua- 

tion  is  given,  not  io  much  as  indirectly 
or  implicitly,  that  Bifhops  were  officers 
fuperior  in  their  order  to  Freibyters. — 
In  (?#"> rt>  to  far  is  ordination,  or  con* 
Firmation,  from  being  appropriated 
to  Bifhops  ?,s  their  excluiive  rights  that 
not  the  Jeaft  hint  is  luggelled  afjout  the 
one,  or  the  other.  A  net  this  is  the  more 
worthy  of  notice,  as  a  very  particular  ac- 
count is  exhibited  of  the  obfervation  cf 
the  Lord's  day,  cf  the  ad  mini  lira  tion  of 
baptifrn  and  the  Lord's  fupper,  and  of 
their  being  adminiftered  by  the  Presi- 
dents o?  the  brethren.  Surely, 
Juftm  would  not  have  omitted  to  fpeak 
of  fo  important  a  matter  as  the  office  and 
diftinguiihing  powers  of*Bifhops,  if  he 
had  thought  of  them  as  fomc  Epifcopa- 
lians  do  at  this  day.  He  had  as  fair  an 
opportunity  to  mention  thefe  things,  as 

the 


JUSTIN   MARTYR.   355 

the  other  ;  yea,  if  Bifhops,  in  his  day, 
had  been  thofe  effentially  necefTary  offi- 
cers in  the  church,  that  they  are  made  to 
he  in  this,  he  might  with  as  much,  nay, 
with  much  more,  reafon  have  brought 
them  into  view.  He  certainly  did  not 
know  of  fuch  Bifhops  as  are  now  con- 
tended for.  Had  there  been  any  of  this 
kind,  in  his  day,  it  was  altogether  inex- 
cufable  in  him,  while  pleading  the  caufc 
of  Chriftians,  to  let  it  fufFer,  by  faying 
nothing  of  that,which  is  now  thought  toen- 
ter  into  the  very  being  of  Chriftianity  itfelf. 
It  may  be  pertinently  added  to  what 
has  been  faid,  that  the  Prases,  Pro- 
positus, or,  in  Englifh,  President  of 
the  brethren,  was  nothing  more  than  the 
Paftor  of  a  single  flock,  or  congregation. 
For  he  is  defcribed  as  "  leading  in  the  pray- 
ers of  a  whole  church,  preaching  to  them, 
adminiftring  the  Lord's  fupper,and  fend- 
ing theconfecrated  elements  to  thofe  who 
could  not  be  prefent  at  the  time  of  ad- 
miniftration."  And  it  is  remarkable,  not 
a  word  is  faid  of  his  being  placed  over 
Prefbyters  as"  their  ruler  and  Governor* 
Inftead  of  this,  he  is  called  the  Presi- 
dent OF  THE    BRETHREN.        And  Prefi- 

dents  and  Deacons  are  the  two  orders 

ill 


356  JUSTIN  MARTYR. 

in  the  church  he  particularly  fpecifies  ; 
meaning  by  Prefidents,  thofe  officers  that 
were,  in  this  age,  promifcuoufly  called 
either  Bifhops,  or  Prefbyters  :  or,  at  mod 
he  could  intend  nothing  more  than  Prime- 
Prejbytersy  diftinguifhingthem  as  fuch  by 
the  application  of  this  name  to  them. 
Moft  certainly,  he  could  not  mean  Bi- 
fhops in  the  impleaded  fenfe  ;  for  then 
there  would  be  only  Bifhops  and  Deacons 
in  the  church  :  neither  could  he  mean 
Prefbyters  in  diftin&ion  from  Bifhops  ; 
for,  in  this  view,  there  would  be  no  Bi- 
fhops.    The  plain  truth  is,  Juftin  knew 

of    but     TWO     INSTITUTED     ORDERS    of 

church-officers,  the  firft  of  which  he 
calls  Presidents,  meaning  hereby  thofe 
officers  that  were  then  called  both  Bi- 
fhops and  Prefbyters  ;  the  other,  Dea- 
cons. And  herein  he  agrees,  not  only 
with  the  apoftolical  writers,  but  with  all 
his  predeceflors  to  the  day  in  which  he 
lived,  who  mention  only  two  orders 
of  officers  in  the  church  ;  the  firft  of 
which  they  promifcuoufly  call  either  Bi- 
fhops or  Prefbyters,  fometimes  the  for- 
mer, and  fometimes  the  latter. 


MELITO, 


MELITO,  TATIAN,  ATHENA- 
GORAS,  HERMIAS,  THEO- 
PHILUS,APOLLINARIUS,DI- 
ONYSIUS  of  Corinth,  PYNI- 
TUS,  PHILIP,  MODESTUS, 
MUSANUS,  BARDESANES, 
The  Epistle  of  the  Churches 
of  Vienne  and  Lyons. 


THE  above  named  Fathers  were 
all  writers.  I  have,  with  Du-pin, 
placed  them  after  Juftin,  and  before  Ire- 
naeus,  and  in  the  fame  order  ;  which, 
perhaps,  is  as  exa£l  as  any  they  could  be 
put  in.  There  was  no  real  need  of  bring- 
ing thefe  writers  to  view  ;  as  the  works 
of  moft  of  them  are  loft,  and  thofe  of  the 
other  have  nothing  that  falls  in  with  our 
prefent  defign  :  but  it  was  thought  beft 
not  to  pafs  them  over,  without  faying 
what  might  be  proper  to  give  the  reader 
a  juft  idea  both  of  them,  and  of  their 
writings. 

MELITO, 


358      M    E    L    I    T    O. 

MELITO.     He  was  Bifhop  of  Sardis, 
in  Afia,  and  fome   fuppofe  him  to  have 
been  the  "  Angel  of  the  church"  there, 
to  whom  one  of  the  epiftles  in  the  "  apo- 
calypfe"  is  directed  ;  but  without  theleaft 
probability  of  truth.      He  ftourifhed,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Cave,  about  the  year  170. 
Du-pin  brings  him  down   a    few    years 
lower.      Eufebius    introduces  Polycrates 
fpeaking  of  him  in  that   ftile,  "  Melito 
the  Eunuch."      It  is  generally  faid,  he  is 
thus  fpoken  of  on  account  of  his  extra- 
ordinary chafte  and  felf-denying  life  in 
celibacy,  for  religion's  fake.   But  no  good 
reafon  has  yet  been  given,  fo  far  as  I  have 
ieen,  why  the  literal  meaning  of  the  word 
fhould  be  departed  from.     Jerom  tells  us, 
from  one  of   Tertullian's  works,  "  that 
he  was  efteemed  a  Prophet   by  many  of 
the  people,"  that  is,  a  man  infpired  by  the 
Holy  Ghoft.  r  He  alfo  informs  us,  from 
the  fame  writer,  that  his  u  genius   was 
eloquent  and   oratorical."     He   himfelf, 
as  Eufebius  writes  in  a  quotation    from 
him,  tells  us,  M  that  he  had  travelled  into 
the  eaft,  and  had  compiled   in  order  the 
books  of  the  old  teftament,  as  they  were 
then  and  there  received  :"  upon   which, 
he  adds..  "  we  have  wrote   fix  boots  of 

r 

commentareis." 


M    E    L    X    T    O.      350 

commentaries."  The  catalogue  he  has 
here'  exhibited  contains  the  fame  books, 
with  thofe  we  now  acknowledge  as  ca- 
nonical ;  oniy  Efther  and  Nehemiah  are 
not  inferted,  for  what  reafon  I  know  not* 
unlefs  they  were  not  efteerried,  in  that 
day,  as  equal  in  authority  with  the  other 
books.  Dr.  Lardner  fays,  "  This  is  the; 
firft  catalogue  of  the  books  of  the  <  old 
teftament,  recorded  by  any  Chriftiari 
writer/' 

This  Father  is  exceeded  by  few,  if  any^ 
in  his  day,  as  to  the  number  of  books 
which  he  wrote.  Eufebius  has  given  us 
the  following  catalogue  of  them."  * 
a  Two  books  concerning  eafter/'  One 
concerning  "  the  rule  of  right  living, 
and  of  the  Prophets."  Another  "  of 
the  church."  Another  "of  the  Lord's  day/' 
Alfo  one  book  <c  concerning  the  nature 
of  man."  Another  of  "  his  formation/* 
Another  "  of  the  obedience  of  the  fenfes* 
to  faith."  Moreover,  a  book  "  of  the  foul, 
and  body,  and  mind,"  Another  "  of 
baptifm."  Another  "  of  the  truth,  faith, 
and  the  generation  of  Jefus  Chrift."  One 
A  a  a  alfo 

?  H*  E.  Lib.  vi,  cap.  xxv2, 


360      M    E    L    I    T    O. 

alfo  "  concerning  prophefy."  Another 
"of  hofpitslity."  A  book  entitled,  "  of 
the  key."  Another,  "  of  the  devil. " 
Another  u  of  the  revelation  of  John." 
Another  "  of  the  incorporeal  God,"  ory 
as   others  tranflate  the   original   words, 

*  of  God  incarnate."  *  Finally,  his 
*'  little  book  to  Antoninus  ;"  undoubted- 
ly meaning  the  "  apology"  he  addreiTec! 
to  him,  in  behalf  of  the  fuffering  Chrif- 
tians.  The  date  of  this  apology,  in  Eu- 
febius's  "  chronicle,"  with  which  the 
"  Alexandrian"  agrees,  rs  170.  But  Til- 
femont  places  it  in  175  ;  Bafnage  in 
177,  which  latter  date  Dr.  Lardner 
thinks  conies  neareft  the  truth. 

How  long  this  celebrated  Father  lived, 
and  in  what  manner  he  died,  cannot  be 
feid  at  this  day.      Thus  much  only  we 

find, 

*  Dr.  Lardner  has  not  tranflated  the  title  of  this  book,  be- 
caufe,  fay 3  he,  "  the  meaning  of  it  is  doubtful."  Says 
Du-pin,  "  It  is  expreifed  in  Greek,  Peri  en  soma- 
tou  Theou,  "  of  God  incarnate,"  or  "  invefted  with 
a  body."  Others  expound  this  pafTage  after  another 
manner,  fuppoling,  that  he  maintained  that  God  was 
"  corporeal."     This  laft  is  not  the  proper  fi  gnification 

k  of  the  Greek  word.  However,  Origen,  cited  by  Th'eo- 
doret,  in  quef.  20,  in  Exod.  fays,  "  That  Mclito  wrote 
a  book  concerning  God,  that  he  was  corporeal."  E€cleff 
feift*  p.  £5.  note  c. 


M    E    L    I    T    O.      361 

find,  that  Polyc rates,  in  his  "  epiftle  to 
the  church  of  Rome,"  fpeaks  of  him,  as 
**  buried  in  Sardis,  waiting  for  a  vifita- 
tion  from  Heaven,  when  our  Lord  fhali 
faife  him  from  the  dead."  * 

TATIAN.  He  was  born  in  Affyria, 
where  he  was  inftrufted  in  the  theology 
of  the  Grecians.  The  time  of  his  con* 
verfion  to  theChriftian  faith  is  uncertain; 
but  it  was  effected,  at  leaft  ir\  part,  by 
reading  the  facred  books, and  by  confider- 
ing  the  corruptions  and  abfurdities  of 
Paganifm.  Of  thefe  things,  he  has  in- 
formed us  himfelf  in  his "  diicourfeagainfl 
the  Gentiles,"  the  only  one,  among  the 
many  he  wrote,  «f-  that  is  ftill  remaining. 
He  is  fuppofed  to  have  publifhed  it  be- 
fore he  left  the  catholic  opinions  ;  Dr. 
Lardner  thinks,  between  165  and  173. 
He  appears,  from  this  performance,  to 
have  been  a  diligent  ftudent  in  prophane 
learning.  It  is  indeed  filled  with  it  ; 
though  the  matters  he  treats  of  are  not 

methodifed 

*  Eufeb.  H.  E.  Lib.  v.  cap.  24. 

f  Eufebius  fays,  "  He  left  to  pofterity  in  writing  a  great 
number  of  commentaries."  Jerom,  in  his  book  of  il- 
luftrious  men,  exprefles  it  thus,  "  He  left  an  infinity 
cumber  of  books.'* 


363       T    A    T   I    A    N. 

jnethodifed  in  the  niceft  manner.  Eu* 
iebius  calls  this  work  "  an  elaborate  one  ;" 
and  fays,  "it  is  the  mod  elegant  and  ufe-* 
tul  of  all  his  writings."  He  was  Juftin's 
difciple,  and  lived  in  communion  with  the 
church  during  his  life  ;  but  afterwards 
he  embraced  a  variety  of  very  abfurd  no- 
tions, and  became  the  founder  of  a  new 
fe6f, called "Epcratites,"  or  "Continents." 
He  condemned  the  ufeofwine,  anddiverfe 
forts  of  flefh,  denied  the  lawfulnefs  of 
.inarriage,  the  falvation  of  Adam,  and, 
what  is  much  worfe,  the  reality  of  Chrift's 
fufFerings  :  befides  all  which,  he  main- 
tained the  doclrine  of  Valentinus's  "  in- 
yifible  aeons,'*  and  afferted,  withMarcion, 
that  there  are  "  two  Gods/'  Eufebius 
fpeaks  *  of  his  having  "  patched  toge- 
ther, a  kind  of  harmony  and  colle&ion 
of  the  goipels,  which  he  called  "  dia 
teflaron,  of  the  four  -"  which,  fays  he, 
"  is  ftill  in  the  hands  of  fotpe."  Theo- 
doret,  a  writer  in  the  fifth  century,  fpeak- 
ing  of  this  fame  book,  fays,  as  I  find 
him  quoted  by  Dr.  Lardner,  he,  mean- 
ing Tatian,  "compofed  a  gofpel,  which  is 
ff  calle4  u  dia   tefiaron,  of  the    four," 

"  leaving 

fjff,  E.  Lib.  iv.  c§p.  29* 


T    A    T    I    A    N.        363 

'*  leaving  out  the  genealogies,  and  every 
"  thing  that  fhews  the  Lord  to  have  been 
"  the  feed  of  David  according  to  the 
"  flefh  ;  which  has  been  ufed,  not  only 
"  by  thofe  of  his  fe&,  but  alfo  by  them 
•c  who  followed  the  apoftolical  do&rine, 
u  not  perceiving  the  fraud  of  the  com- 
"  pofition,  but  fimply  ufing  it  as  a  com- 
**  pendious  book.  I  have  met  with  more 
"  then  two  hundred  of  thefe  books,  which 
"  were  in  efteem  in  our  churches  $  all 
u  which  I  took  away  and  laid  afide  in  a 
"  parcel,  and  placed  in  their  room  the 
f<  gofpels  of  the  four  Evangelifts."  It 
was  a  report,  in  Eufebius's  day,  that  this 
Tatian  had  the  "  aflurance  to  alter  the 
words  of  the  Apoftle  [meaning  without 
doubt  the  Apoftle  Paul,]  pretending  to 
mend  the  compofition,  or  order  of  his 
flile."  Dr.  Mills  feems  to  think,  this 
€i  altering  the  words  of  the  Apoftle"  was 
nothing  more  than  fome  interlineary  or 
marginal  explanations  ;  and  that  the 
"  corre&ing  the  Apoftle' s  ftile"  was  on- 
ly difpofing  his  words,  in  the  margin,  in 
a  more  natural  order,  without  doing,  or 
intending  to  do,  any  prejudice  to  the  ori- 
ginal text.  This  is  as  candid  an  account 
as  can  be  given  of  this  matter  5   but  it 

does 


364      T    A    T    I    A    N. 

docs  not  well  agree  with  the  chara&er  of 
Tatian,whofedcfe6tionEufebius*afcribes 
to  his  being  "  fo  puffed  up  with  a  pre- 
fumptuous  felf-eftimation,  as  to  imagine 
he  furpaffed  all  others."  Befides,  having 
mentioned  Severus,  and  his  followers, 
called  Severiani,  and  faid,  "  they  revile 
the  Apoftle  Paul,  rejeft  his  epiftles,  deny 
the  a&s  of  the  Apoftles  ;"he  adds,"  their 
firft  author  was  Tatianus."  How  he 
died,  is  not  known.  Du-pin  fays,  it  was 
about  the  time  that  Irenaeus  wrote  his 
volume  againft  herefies  ;  which,  perhaps, 
is  not  far  diftant  from  the  exatt  truth. 
Nothing  is  to  be  met  with  in  this  writer 
relative  to  the  fubjeft  we  are  upon  :  or  if 
there  was,  its  credit  would  be  much  wea- 
kened, as,  inftead  of  "  holding  faft  the 
truth,"  he  had  «  turned  ^fide  to  fables." 

ATHENAGORAS.  Two  pieces  of  his 
are  extant,  "  an  apology  for  the  Chrifti- 
ans,"  and  a  "  difcourfe  on  the  refurredti- 
on."  In  the  former  of  thefe,  he  fpeaks 
of  himfelf  as  an  "  Athenian,"  and  a 
"  Philofopher."  And  this  is  the  moft 
we  certainly  know  of  him,  except  what 

may 

*  H.  E.  Lib,  iv.  ca^i  29, 


ATHENAGORAS.  365 

may  be  colle&ed  from  his  writings,  Eu* 
fcbius  and  Jerom  fay  nothing  of  him,  or 
of  any  work  of  his  ;  nor  is  he  mentioned 
by  any  of  the  ancients,  until  we  have  got 
down  to  Epiphanius,  who  has  quoted  a 
pafTage  from  him.  There  is  indeed  fome 
account  of  him  by  Philip Sidetes  (a  writer 
in  the  fifth  century)  in  a  fragment  of 
his  w  Chriftian  hiftory,"  publifhed  by 
Dodwel.  But  the  learned  in  thefe  matters 
do  not  give  much  credit  to  it.  Says  Dr. 
Lardner,  "  this  hiftory  of  Philip  has  no 
great  chara&er  given  it  by  Socrates,  or 
Photius,  who  had  read  it." 

The  "  apology'*  is  infcribed  to  "  Mar- 
cus ourelius  Antoninus,  and  Lucius  Au- 
relius  Commodus."  Critical  writers  differ 
m  their  judgments  as  to  one  of  the  per- 
fons,  to  whom  this  apology  is  addreffed, 
apd  accordingly  put  a  different  date  to  it. 
Some  think  it  was  addrefled  to  Marcus 
Antoninus,  and  his  adopted  brother  and 
colleague  in  the  empire,  Lucius  Verus, 
who  died  in  169,  before  which  time  this 
apology  muft  have  been  wrote.  Others 
think  it  was  infcribed  to  Marcus  Anto- 
ninus, and  his  fon  Commodus.  Thofe 
of  this  latter  opinion  place  it  about  the 

year 


366  ATHENAGORAl 

year  177  or  178.  In  this  apology  he 
wipes  off  the  afperfions  that  had  been  ma- 
licioufly  thrown  on  Chriftians  ;  affirm- 
ing, and  defcribing,  their  holinefs  in  all 
manner  of  converfation.— He  afTerts  that 
the  devils  were  ruined  through  love  to 

women. He    admits    free-will   in    its 

utmoft  latitude. He  commends  virgi- 
nity, but  condemns  fecond  marriages, 
calling  them  "  honeft  adultery."-— He 
treats  of  the  refurre&ion,  andthe  laft  judg- 
ment. 

His  difcourfe  of  the  "  refur  reft  ion"  was 
probably  wrote  after  the  apology  *  and 
whatftrengthens  the  probability  is,  that, 
having  towards  the  conclufion  of  the 
apology  fallen  upon  the  affair  of  the  re- 
furredtion,  he  poftpones  a  more  full  dif- 
courfe upon  it  to  fome  other  time.  He 
endeavors  to  prove,  in  this  work,  that  a 
refurredtion  from  the  dead,  far  from  being 
impoflible,  is  extremely  credible.  His  ar- 
guments are  taken  rather  from  reafon 
than  the  fcriptures. 

The  genuinenefs  of  neither  of  thefc 
pieces  are  called  in  queftion,  though  the 
author  of  them  had  fo  little  notice  taken 

of 


HERMIAS.  THEOPHILtrS.      367 

of  him  in  primitive  antiquity.  Dr.  Lard- 
ner  fays,  "  He  is  a  polite  writer,  and  wrote 
in  attic  Greek  ;  but  he  has  rendered  his 
ftilelefs  agreeable  by  frequent  parenthefes.'* 

HERMIAS.  He  is  called  "  a  Chriftiait 
Philofopher,"  and  wrote  a  piece,  entitled, 
"  Irrifio,"  an  imperfeft  copy  of  which  is 
flill  remaining.  It  contains  a  feries  of 
iatyrical  reflections  on  the  wild  opinions, 
and  extravagant  notions,  of  the  philo- 
fophycal  Gentiles.  Neither  this  work,  or 
its  author,  are  mentioned  by  any  of  the 
primitive  Fathers  ;  nor  can  it  be  deter- 
mined when  he  wrote  it.  However,  fays 
Du-pin  "It  is  not  to  be  doubted  but  that 
he  is  ancient,  and  that  he  lived  before  the 
pagan  religion  was  extirpated."  He  adds, 
"  This  little  book  was  printed  by  itfelf, 
in  Greek  and  Latin,  at  Bafil,  anno  domi- 

ni»    1553" 

THEOPHILU3.  He  was  born  of  hea- 
then parents, and  was  himfelf  an  heathen 
in  religion,  until  his  converfion  to  Chrif- 
tianity.  When  this  was  effe&ed,  or  by 
what  fpecial  means,  we  know  not  j  bur, 
having  profeffed  himfelf  a  Chriftian,  he 
fa  adorned  his  character,  in  this  view  of 
Bbb  it* 


368     THEOFHILUS, 

it,  as  to  be  thought  worthy  of  the  Epif-* 
copate  at  Antioch,  in  which  he  fucceeded 
Eros,  in  the  Sth  of  Marcus  Antoninus, 
or  1 68th  of  our  Lord. 

He  did  not  confine  himfelf  to  the 
work  of  preaching  to  the  people  of  his 
particular  charge,  but  endeavored  by  writ- 
ing alfo  to  ferve  the  common  caufe  of 
Chriftianity.  He  wrote,  as  the  account 
is  inEufebius,  *  "  three  books  to  Auto-» 
iycus,  containing  the  elements  of  reli- 
gion ;"  another  "  againft  the  herefy  of 
Hermogenes  ;"  another  "  againft  Mar- 
don."  There  are  alfo,  lays  he,  "  other 
books  of  his  concerning  the  rudiments  of 
religion. "  Jerom,  in  his  book  of  illuftrious 
men,  befides  mentioning  the  above  writ-* 
ings,  fays,  "  I  have  read  fome  commen- 
taries upon  the  gofpel,  and  proverbs  of 
Solomon,  which  go  under  his  name  ;  but 
they  do  not  appear  to  me  to  anfwer  the 
ftile  and  elegance  of  the  beforementioned 
writings."  There  are  ftill  extant,  "  fhort 
commentaries  or  allegories  upon  the  four 
gofpels,  in  four  books/'  with  the  name  of 
Theophilus  to  them.  Some  have  thought 
they  were  his  j  but  without  good  leafon. 

It? 

*  H.  Er  Lib.-  iv.  cap.  24* 


THEOPHILUS.    369 

It  is  generally  conceded,  that  they  are 
the  work  of  a  much  later  writer.  If 
thefe  were  the  "  commentaries'*  Jerom 
faw,  he  obferved  their  difference  in  flile 
and  elogance  from  the  other  works  of 
Theophilus  *,  for  which  reafon,  it  may  be 
fuppofed,  he  was  not  the  author  of  them ; 
efpecially,  as  they  were  unknown  to 
Eufebius.  The  only  writings  of  Theo- 
philus (till  remaining,  and  accounted  ge-^ 
nuine,  are  his  "  three  books  to  Antoly- 
cus."  They  are  fuppofed,  by  learned  men, 
to  have  been  wrote  not  long,  before  his 
death,  that  is,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
jeign  of  Commodus,  about    181. 

The  firft  of  thefe  books  may  not  im- 
properly be  called  a  difcourfe  between 
him  and  Autolycus,  in  anfwer  to  the  de- 
fire  of  that  heathen  Philofopher,  in  which 
he  treats  of  the  nature  of  God,  and  what 
we  call  his  attributes  or  perfections.  The 
fecond  book  is  wrote  with  a  more  im- 
mediate defign  to  convince  Autolycus  of 
the  falfhood  of  heathenifm,  and  the  truth 
of  Chriftianity.  And  here  he  mentions 
the  opinions  of  the  heathen  concerning 
their  gods,  reprefenting  their  abfurdity, 
ai}d  pointing  out  the  contradictions  there 
were  among  their  Philofophers  and  Poets 

upoa 


370    THEOPHILUS. 

upon  this  head.  He  enlarges  upon  the 
creation  of  the  world  j  the  hiftory  of 
Mofes,  which  he  (hews  to  be  the  oldeft 
and  trueft  of  any  in  the  world,  and  that 
they  had  extra&ed  many  things  from  the 
holy  fcriptuues.  In  the  third  book,  after 
having  proved  the  writings  of  the  hea- 
then to  be  contrary  to  good  fenfe,and  good 
manners,  he  vindicates  the  Chriftians, 
by  letting  their  character  in  a  fair  and 
amiable  light.  At  the  end  of  thefe  books, 
he  hasaddedan  hiflorical chronology fi oka 
the  beginning  of  the  world.  Du-pin  fays,  * 
«'  It  is  apparent  from  this  little  epitome, 
*'  how  well  this  author'  was  acquainted 
*'  with  prophane  hiftory.  Thefe  books 
"  are  filled  with  a  great  variety  of  cu* 
*l  rious  difquifitions  relative  to  the  Poets 
c<  and  Phiiofophers  ;  though  there  are 
"  but  few  things  that  relate  immediately 
*4  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Chriftian  re- 
"  ligion  :  not  that  he  was  ignorant  of 
"  them,  for  it  appears,  from  feveral  paf- 
"  iages,  that  he  was  very  fkilful  in  thefe 
"  matters  ;  but,  as  he  compofed  thefe 
«  books  chiefly  to  convince  a  pagan,  he 
61  infifts,  in  proof  pf  our  religion,  rather 
5*  upon  arguments  from  without,  than 

by 

•* 

J  Ecclef,  Lift.  2d  cent.  p.  67. 


APOLLINARIUS.     371 

by  expounding  its  do&rines."  He 
adds,  "  The  ftile  of  thefe  books  is 
elegant,  and  the  turn  of  thought  agreeable. 
Whoever  reads  them,  cannot  doubt  but 
that  the  author  was  a  very  elegant  man." 

APOLLINARIUS  or  APOLLINARIS. 

HE  is  faid  to  have  been  Bifhop  of  Hie- 
rapolis,  a  city  in  Phrygia.  He  flouriflied 
in  the  reign  of  Marcus  Antoninus,  and 
wrote  feveral  books,  the  titles  only  of 
which  remain  at  this  day.  Eufebius's  ac- 
count of  him  is  this."  *  "  Though  ma- 
ny volumes  were  wrote  by  Apollina- 
rius  ;  yet  thefe  only  came  to  our  hands. 
"  An  oration  to  the  beforenamed  Em- 
peror" [  Marcus  Antoninus  ].  "  Five 
books  againft  the  Gentiles."  "  Two 
books  of  the  truth."  "Two  books  againft 
the  Jews."  And  fuch  books  as  he  after- 
wards wrote  againft  the  "  Phrygian  he- 
refy."  Jerom,  in  "  catalogo,"  omits  the 
books  againft  the  Jews.  Neither  are  they 
found,  fays  Du-pin,  in  the  "  verfion  of 
Ruffinus,  nor  even  in  fome  Greek  manu- 
fcripts  of  Eufebius."  Photius,  having 
read  his  "  books  againft  the  GentUes,"  as 
alfo  thofe  "  concerning  piety  and  truth," 

which 

*  H.  E.  Lib,  iv.  cap.  27  n 


37* 


D  I  O  N  Y  S  I  U  S. 


which  were  extant  in  his  day,  fays  of 
him,  *  "  that  he  was  much  to  be  efteem^ 
ed  both  for  his  doftrine  and  ftile." 

DION YSIUSof Corinth.  HewasBifhop 
of  the  church  in  this  city,  and  flourifhed, 
according  to  Dr.  Cave,  about  the  year 
170  :  herewith  agrees  Eufebius,  who  fays, 
in  his  "cronicon,"  the  1  ith  of  Marcus 
Antoninus,  which  is  171  ofChrift.  The 
!aft  mentioned  author,  fpeaking  of  him 
in  his  "ecclefiaftical  hiftory;"  fays,  -f  "  he 
not  only  made  the  people  of  his  own 
charge  partakers  of  his  divine  labors,  but 
the  Chriftians  in  other  countries  alfo,  by 
the  "  catholic  epiftles"  which  he  wrote 
and  fent  to  many  churches."  He  then 
particularly  mentions  thefe  epiftles,  and 
in  the  following  order.  The  firft,  to  the 
"  Lacedemonians  ;"  containing  an  infti- 
tution  of  the  right  faith,  and  an  exhorta- 
tion to  peace  and  unity.  The  fecond,  to 
the  "  Athenians ;"  tending  to  excite  their 
faith,  and  ftir  them  up  to  a  life  of  con- 
formity to  the  rule  of  the  gofpel.  The 
third,  to  the  "  Nicomedians  5"  wherein 
he  oppofes  the  herefy  of  Marcion,  com- 
oaring  it  with  the  flandard  of  faith.  The 
fourth,  to  "  the  church  of  Gortjna,  and 

|1| 

*  Cod.  14,  t  Lib.  iv.  cap.  231 


X)  I  O  N  Y  S  I  U  S.     373 

all  thofe  of  Crete;'*  in  which  he  great- 
ly commends  Philip  their  Biihop,  for  that 
the  church,  committed  to  his  charge,  was 
fo  beautified  with  virtue  and  generofity. 
The  fifth,  to  the  "  church  at  Amaftris, 
with  the  churches  throughout  Pontus  ?, 
in  which  he  explains  diverfe  paflages 
of  fcripture,  laying  down  feveral  pre- 
cepts concerning  marriage  and  virginity. 
The  fixth,  to  the  "Gnoflians  :"  in  which 
he  advifeth  Pinytus  their  Bifhop,  not 
to  impofe  on  the  Chriftians  the  grievous 
burden  of  vowed  chaftity  as  a  matter  of 
neceflity.  The  feventh,  to  the  u  Ro- 
mans," directed  to  Soter  their  Bifhop  ; 
in  which  they  are  commended  for  their 
Chriftian  love  and  charity.  An  "eighth 
epiftle"  is  here  mentioned  as  extant  in  that 
day,  which  was  wrote,  and  fent,  to  "Chry- 
fophora,  a  moft  faithful  fitter."  Of 
thefe  epiftles  there  are  now  no  remains, 
except  a  few  fragments  in  Eufebius.. 
Jerom,  in  his  book  of  illuftrious  men, 
after  an  enumeration  of  thefe  epiftles, 
fays,  the  author  of  them  was  "  a  man  of 
great  eloquence,  and  induftry  ;  and  flou- 
riihed  under  Marcus  Antoninus  andCom- 
modus."  When,  and  how,  he  died  is 
uncertain.  He  has  been  numbered  among 

the 


374     P    I   N    Y    T    U    S. 

theMartyrs  ;  but  without  authority  from 
the  records  of  the  more  ancient  Fathers, 

Dr.  Grabe  has  been  able  to  gather 
only  two  fmall  fragments,  from  all  anti- 
quity, of  the  writings  of  this  Dionyfius  ; 
in  one  of  which,  fpeaking  to  the  church 
of  Rome,  he  calls  "  Soter  their  blefkd 
Bifhop."  This  I  mention,  not  as  though 
I  thought  it  of  any  importance  in  the 
prefent  difpute  ;  but  becaufe  I  was  not 
willing  to  omit  noticing  fo  much  as  the 
name,  Bifhop,  in  any  writing,  or  frag- 
ment of  a  writing. 

PINYTUS.  We  are  informed  by 
Dionyfius  of  Corinth,  *  "  that  he  was 
Bifhop  of  the  Gnoflii  at  Crete,  and 
that  he  wrote  an  anfwcr  to  the  epiftle 
which  he  fent  to  this  church."  This 
anfwer,  fays  Eufebius,  -j-  "  reprefents,  as 
it  were,  a  lively  portraiture  of  Pinytus, 
his  diligence  in  watching  over  the  flock, 
which  he  had  been  entrufted  with  by 
God,  his  great  knowledge  in  divinity,  and 
his  uncommon  eloquence." 

These 

*  Eufeb.  H.  E.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  23^        f  H.  E.  lb. 


PHILIPPUS.    MODESTUS.  37g 

;  PHILLIPPUS.  MODESTUS.  Theft 
both,  fays  Eufebius  *  *'  left  monuments 
in  writing  to  pofterity  of  their  apofto- 
lie  tradition,  and  found  faith."  They  parti- 
cularly wine  againft  Marcion.  Dio'ny- 
Jius  of  Corinth,  f  in  his  epiftle  to  the 
church  atG'ortyna,"  commends  Philip  their 
Biihop  on  account  of  the  evidence  this 
church  had  given  of  their  virtuous  gene- 
rofity."  Eufebius  +  ranks  Modeftus" 
#ith  fre'nas'us,  "  as  having,  of  all  others,' 
had  the  chiefeft  hand  in  detecting  and 
fcxpofing  the  errors  of  Marcidn." 

MU3ANU3.  He  is  fpofcen  of  by  Eu- 
febius §  as  having  wrote  an  excellent 
Book,  entitled,  "  unto  the  brethren  lately 
fallen  into  the  herefy  of  the  Encratites/9 
which  had  then  lately  fprung  up,  and 
molefted  the  churches  with  a  ftrangekind 
of  falfe  and  pernicious doctrine;  theauthor 
of   which  is'  fa  id  to  have  been-  Tatianus* 

BARDESANES-.  He  lived  about  the. 
fame  time  with  the  beforenamed Fathers,' 
was  a  Mefopotamian  by  birth,  a  very 
eloquent  man,  and  fkilful  in  logic.  He 
publiilred,  in  the  Syrian  tongue,  "'  dia- 
C  c  c  logues, 

*  H.  E.    Lib.    iv.    cap.    2^.       t    Eufcb.  H.    E.    Life  Wj 
©»,-  23.    $  Lib/  &  cap.  25.    $  H.  E.  Lio  ir-  cap,  M^ 


3jb    BARDESANES; 

Jogues,  together  with  other  books  againff 
Marcion,  and  other  grand  heretics/' 
Thefe  were  tranflated  by  certain  learned 
men  (a  great  number  of  which  were  his 
difciplcs)  into  the  Greek  language.  His 
<c  dialogue,"  in  ipecial,  entitled,"  of  def- 
tiny,"  was  translated,  and  dedicated  to 
Antoninus  the  Emperor.  Eufebius  fays,  * 
•'  it  was  of  great  force."  He  adds, 
*<  He  wrote  many  other  books,  occafi- 
oned  by  the  perfecution  raifed  in  thofe 
rimes.  He  was  tutored  byValentinusjbut 
afterwards  reprehending  and  condemn- 
ing hh  fabulous  dreams,  he  became  more 
found. in  the  faith  -,  though  he  was  not  alto- 
gether clear  of  the  filth  of  the  former  herefy." 

The  epistle  of  the  churches  of  Vi- 
snne  and  Lyons.  Nothing  is  to  be 
met  with  in  this  epiftle,  upon  the  fubjedl 
of  thefe  papers,  unlefs  it  be  that  Pothi- 
nus  is  fpoken  of  as  "  Bifhop  of  Lyons  g 
for  which  reafon  I  fhould  have  paffed  it 
<over  in  filence,  but  that  it  is  fo  valuable 
a  piece  of  antiquity.  It  contains  a  nar- 
rative of  the  grievous  fufferings,  and 
cruel  deaths,  of  a  great  number  of 
Chriftians,   particularly  in  the  cities  of 

Vienne^ 

J  Hi  E.  Lib.  iv,  cap.   30, 


BARDESANES 


377 


Vienne  and  Lyons.  The  fa<5ts  are  here 
related,  not  in  a  romantic  ftrain,  but 
with  fuch  fimplicity  of  language  as  to 
render  them  at  once  credible,  and  greatly 
affe&ing.  Dr.  Lardner  fays  of  this  epif- 
tle,  M  It  is  the  fineft  thing  of  the  kind 
iii  all  antiquity."  It  is  wrote  in  the  fpirit, 
and  after  the  manner,  of  the  apoftolie 
age.  The  time  of  the  perfecution^ 
which  occafioned  this  letter,  is  difput- 
ed.  But  Eufebius  *  has  with  great  pre- 
ciiion  placed  it  in  the  feventeenth  year 
of  Marcus  Antoninus,  the  177th  of  our 
Lord.  And  in  this  date  the  moft  learn- 
ed do  acquiefce. 

It  appears  from  this  epiftle,  a  very 
great  part  of  which  is  preferved  in  Eu- 
febiils's  "  ecclefiaftical  hiftory,"  that 
vaft  numbers  of  Chriftians  were  called, 
in  this  perfecution,  to  fuffer  the  lofs  of  all, 
yea,  even  their  very  lives,  and  in  the  moft 
formidable  fliapes,  for  the  fake  of  their 
religion.  It  is  aftonifhing,  that  any  of 
the  human  race  lhould  fo  far  put  off  hu- 
manity, as  to  be  able  to  inflict  thofe 
torments   which  the  poor  Martyrs  now 

endured  ; banifhed  from  their  houfes- 

forbid 

?  H.  E.  Lib,  v.  proaen;*  ,11  • 


3?8   .BARD.ES  ANE 

i#rbid  to  fhew  fo  much  as  their  heads—,- 
vilified.,   mocked,    and    infulted-— beaten 

with    ftripes hurried    from    place    tq 

place plundered,    ftoned,    imprifoned, 

there  treated  with  outrage  and  fury,  and 
then  carried  faith  to  execution  in  all  the 
crnciaiing  ways  that  malice  could  invent: 
nor  was  this  all  :  for,  as  the  words  are 
in  this  epiftle,  "  After  the  bodies  of  the 
*'  bleiled  faints  had  been,  in  every  way, 
*'  fpitefully  and  fcornfully  treated,  and 
Jt  fufFered  to  be  fix  days  unbuiied,  they 
*<  were  burned  to  allies  ;  and  the  afnes 
*'  they  gathered,*  and  Scattered  in  the 
",  river  Rhodan  us,  fo  that  not  a  jot  of  them 
**  fhould  any  longer  remain  on  the  earth. 
f*  This  they  did,  that  they  might  over-' 
*?  come  God. and  hinder  the  reviving  of  the 
?<  faints ;  left,  as  they  laid,  there  Ihould  be 
*f  any  further  hope  of  the  refunedtion, 
ff  whereof  (fay  they)  theChriftians  being 
de  fully  perfuaded,  bring  among  us  a  new 
*'  and  ftrange  religion  ;  contemning  pu- 
f1  nifhment,  and  battening  themfelves 
*<  cheerfully  to  death.  Now,  fay  they, 
"  let  us  fee,  whether  they  can  arife,  and 
"  whether  fbieir  God  can  deliver  them 
*'  out  ot  our  hands." 

IREN.^US. 


IREN£U   S. 


Jiis  character,    writings,    teftimonies  frem 
tkem,  and  remarks. 


THE  perfons  from  whom  Irenaeus 
defcended  are  now  unknown  ;  and 
fo  is  the  particular  place  where  he  was 
born.  He  might  probably  be  a  Greek, 
and  of  the  country  of  Afia.  It  is  the  con- 
jecture of  fome,  that  he  was  a  native  of 
Smyrna,  or  of  fome  not  far  diftant  town, 
from  his  early  acquaintance  with  the  ve- 
nerable Polycarp.  '  He  was  certainly,  in 
his  younger  years,  an  attendant  on  the  in- 
ftruftions  of  this  apoftolical  Father,  whofe 
dodtrine  was  fo  deeply  impreffed  on  his 
mind,  that  he  firmly  retained,  even  to 
old  age,  the  remembrance  of  it.  Thus 
much  he  has    told  us   himfelf,  in   his 

epiftle 


3<8o    I    R    E    N    JE   U   S. 

epiftle  toFlorinus,  quoted  by  Eufebius.  • 
Says  he,  "  I  well  remember  the  place 
"  where  Polycarp  f^t  when  he  taught  5 
•*  his  going  out,and  coming  in  ;  his  man- 
"  ner  and  courfe  of  life  ;  the  figure  and 
"  proportion  of  his  body ;  the  fermons 
1  which  he  preached  to  the  multitude  ; 
•/  the  relations  he  gave  of  his  converfe 
«c  with  the  Apoftle  John,  and  others  who 
"  faw  the  Lord:  how  he  remembered  their 
"  fayings,  and  what  he  heard  from  their 
"  mouths,  touching  the  Lord,  of  his 
*'  power  and  doctrine  ;  reciting  precepts, 
"  and  all  things  confonant  to  holy  fcrip- 
ce  ture,  out  of  their  mouths  (I  fay)  who 
**  had  feen  with  their  eyes  the  word  of 
"  life  in  the  flefh.  Thefe  things,  at  that 
"  time,  I  diligently  marked,  and  painted, 
€t  not  in  paper,  but  in  my  heart  j  which 
"  continually,  through  the  grace  of  God, 
"  I  ponder  and  meditate."— -This  mani- 
fefts  his  antiquity  ;  which  further  appears 
from  that  frequent  mode  of  diftion,  in 
his  book  againft  herefies,  "  as  ]  heard 
from  a  certain  Prefbyter,  who  heard  from 
thofe  who  faw  the  Apoftles."  Eufebius 
takes  particular  notice  of  this.  Says  he,  -f- 
"  Irenseus  has  mentioned  the  fayings  of 

a 

*  H.  E.  Lib,  v.  cap.  20.     f  H.  E.  Lib.  v.  cap.  8. 


I   R    E   N    IE   U   S,      38» 

a  certain  apoftolical  Prefbyter  without 
telling  his  name,  and  puts  down  his  ex- 
pofitionsofthefcriptures."  WhothisPref- 
byter  was  cannot  be  afcertained.  It  might 
be  Papias,  wliom  he  had  'feen,  and  heard, 
and  has  fometimes  pointed  out  by  name.  It 
might  be  Pothinus,  his  predeceffor,  or 
fome  other  ancient  Father.  He  may 
from  hence  be  juftly  ftiled  a  man,  if  not 
of  apoftolical  times,  yet  near  to  them  $  as 
having  converted  with  thofe  who  had  feen 
the  Apoftles,  and  were  fucceflbrs  to  them. 
When  he  took  upon  him  the  profeflion 
of  Chriftianity  is  not  known  ;  though  it 
is  probable,  he  was  indo&rinated  in  its 
principles  from  his  earlieft  days,  and 
not  made  a  convert  to  them  from  the  ido- 
latries and  fuperftitions  of  Paganifm. 

The  time  of  his  going  to  France  can-j 
not  exa6Hy  be  fixed  ;  nor  is  thefpeci^  oc- 
cafion  that  led  them  there  now  known,  hmu 
But  he  foon  became  famous  in  that  part 
of  the  world,  and  did  much  fervice  for 
the  intereft  of  Chrift,  particularly  in  the 
church  at  Lyons.  Pothinus,  the  Bifhop, 
or  Prsefes  of  this  church,  in  the  perfec- 
tion under  Antoninus  Verus,  which  now 
greatly  raged  in    France,  was  brought 

before 


383    I   R   E   N   M   tT   S. 

before  the  civil  tribunal  for  his  adherence 
to  the  caufe  of  Chrift,  and,  after  a  moft: 
barbarous  beating,  was  thrown  into  pri- 
son almoft  breathleft,  and  ih  about  two- 
days  died  there  in  the  90th  year  of  his 
age.  Irenseus  was  thought  the  moft  pro- 
per perfon  to  fucceed  the  aged  Martyr, 
and  was  accordingly  chofen  by  the  church 
of  Lyons  their  Bifhop  in  his  room,  or,  iii 
other  words,  their  Prime-Prefbyter, 

The  ftate  of  their  religious  affairs  was 
now  unhappily  difficult,  not  only  on  ac- 
count of  thatheavy  perfecution  which  was 
fcarcely  blown  over,  bat  alio  through  the 
bufy  endeavors  of  fome  cunning  deceivers 
to  corrupt  the  pure  doctrine  of  Chrift 
embraced  among  them.  The  Valentiniari 
heretics  had  by  this  time  fpread  themfelves 
as*  far  as  France,  and  bewitched,  among 
others,,  a  number  of  eminent  women,  with 
their  wild  and  extravagant  opinions.  One 
Marcus  was  particularly  a  deceiver  and 
abufer  of  the  weaker  fex.  Upon  this 
occafion,  Irenaeus,  as  became  ai  pious 
faithful  Minifter  of  Chrift,  diligently 
labored  to  put  a  ftoptothe  further  fpread - 
ingof  this  contagion,  and  to  recover  thofe 
v/ho    had    been   infeCkd.     And  having, 

under 


I   R   £   N   M   U   S.     383 

tinder  the  favor  of  Heaven,  fecured  his 
own  charge,  he  was  greatly  ferviceable  to 
other  churches,  as  occafions  therefor  were 
offered  in  Providence.  The  church  at 
Rome,  being  in  danger  of  being  led  afide 
by  two  of  her  Prelbyters,  Florinus  and 
Blaflus,  he  wrote  to  both  thefe  perverters 
of  the  truth,  with  great  propriety  and 
ftrength ;  as  we  have  the  account  from 
Eulebius.  f 

The  Afian  churches  likewife  were 
much  troubled  with  the  prophecies  and 
delufians  of  Montanus,  Aicibiades,  and 
Theodotus  :  *  upon  which  the  Gallicati 
churches,  either  of  their  own  accord,  from 
chriftian  Live  and  fympathy,  or  at  the 
requefl  of  their  Afian  brethren;  fent 
frenoeus  to  them  with  their  letters,, 
that  he  might  comfort  them  under  their 
trial,  confirm  them  in  the  truth,  and  afliffc 
them  in  the  confutation  of  thefe  heretics* 
r.'ho  had  rofe  up  among  them, 

In  his  time  alfo,  the  controverfy  about 

the  circumftances  of  keeping  eafter  was 

unhappily   revived  by  Victor,  Bilhop  of 

Ddd  Rom* 

*  H,  E.  Lib.  v.  cap,  2.3, 


384     I   R   E   N   M  V  S. 

Rome,  a  furious  hot  headed  bigot,  an^ 
increaied  to  an  heighth  that  was  like  to 
bring  confufion  to  the  churches.  Ire- 
naeus,  not  unafte&ed  with  the  unchrif- 
tian  heats  andanimofities  that  were  now 
too  prevalent,  thought  it  his  duty  to  en- 
deavour to  promote  love  and  peace  be- 
tween the  contending  parties,  notwith- 
standing their  difference  in  fentiment 
upon  this  point.  He  accordingly  wrote, 
in  the  name  of  the  brethren  in  France, 
with  great  pertinence,  to  Victor  of 
Rome.  A  large  fragment  of  this  letter 
Eufebius  has  preferved,  *  in  which  Ire- 
nseus  fays,  "  Though  he  himfelf  folemni- 
€<  fed  thefeaft  of  eafter  on  the  Lord's  day, 
**  according  to  his  [Vi&or's]  manner,  yet 
44  he  could  not  approve  of  the  bitter  zeal 
44  he  difcovered  againft  others  for  the 
€€  obfervation  of  a  cuftom  after  the  man- 
44  ner  they  had  received  from  their  an- 
4*  ceftors."  He  tells  him,  9  that  differ- 
"  ent  Guftoms  had  been  ufed  in  churches, 
44  not  only  in  the  celebration  of  the  feaft 
44  of  eafter,  but  alfo  of  fafts,  and  in 
44  diverfe  other  matters  of  pradtice." 
And,  in  fine,  he  reminds  him,  "  That  his 
44  predeceffors  did  not  contend  with  the 

'  "  Afiatics 

*  HL  E,  Lib*-  v,  cap.  z$± 


I    R    E   N   M   U   S.     385 

*<  Afiaticsr  in  this  matter ;  and  that  Po- 
"  lycarp,  being  at  Rome,  and  having 
"  conferred  with  Anicetus,  upon  this 
«•  affair,  they  determined  that  mutual 
"  communion  ought  not  to  be  broken 
"  for  a  matter  of  fo  fnaall  importance  ; 
"  and  that  they  communicated  with  each 
***  other."  He  wrote,  as  Eufebius  affures 
us,  many  reconciling  letters  to  other 
Bifhops,  upon  this  fame  head.  And,  it 
is  probable,  they  were  followed  with 
fome  good  effeft.  For  though  the  Afia- 
tics  did  not  lay  afide  their  cuftom,  it 
does  not  appear  that  tne  union  betwixt 
them  and  the  Romanifts  was  broken  ; 
but  a  more  calm  and  tranquil  ftate  of 
things  took  place.  Thus  this  good  man, 
in  agreement  with  the  purport  of  his 
name,  discovered  himfelf  to  be  of  a  peace- 
able, and  peace-making  temper.  And 
he  has,  from  that  time  to  this,  been  cha~ 
ra£terifed  as  one  happily  difpofed  to  pro- 
mote candor,  love,  and  peace  among 
brethren  $  though  he  could  clothe  himfelf 
with  zeal,  and  appear  ftrenuous  and  re^ 
folute,  when  the  purity  of  gofpel  truth 
was  in  danger  of  being  corrupted  by  the 
cunning  arts  of  thoft,  who  lay  in  wait  to> 
deceive, 

H« 


386     I   R    E    N    M   U   S. 

He  flourifhed  *  under  Antoninus 
Vcrus,  the  whole  of  Commodus,  and 
part  of  the  reign  of  Severus ;  all  along 
approving  himfelf  a  faithful  laborious 
fervant  of  God,  and  one  that  was  emi- 
nently ufeiiil  to  the  church  of  Chrift,  not 
only  by  his  public  preaching  and  private 
converiation,  but  by  the  writings  he  left 
as  monuments  to  pofterity  of  his  concern 
tor  the  dodrines  of  Chriftianity,  that 
they  might  be  preferred  pure,  in  oppo- 
sition to  the  bafemi.'tures  with  which  they 
had  been  polluted  by  t.;l  men,  in  his  day- 
His  name  is  mentioned  vw  h  great  honor 
in  the  ancient  writings.  The  *£zttyti 
of  Lyons,  in  their  letter  to  Eleutherius, 
Bifhop  of  Rome,  fpeak  of  him  as  worthy 
oi  notice  "not  fo  much  for  his  being  a 
Preibyter,  as  for  his  piety  and  zeal  for 
the  gofpel  of  Jefus  Chrift/'  Tcitullian 
calls  him  u  omnium  doftrinarum  curi- 
ofiflimum  exploratorem,"  that  is,  "  a 
moft  curious  fearcher  into  all  doctrines.'* 
Theodoret  fays,  he  was  "  an  apoftolical 
man,  admirable,  and  the  light  of  the 
weil^rn  church."  Epiphanius  alfo  is 
high  in  his  encomium  of  him.  His 
words  are,   *4  Old  Irenseus,   every  way 

adorned 

*  Saros,  ?.d  an,  iSo* 


I    R    E    N    M   U   S.        387 

adorned  by  the  Holy  Ghoft,  brought  into 
the  field  by  the  Lord  as  a  valiant  and  ex- 
pert foldier,  and  champion,  and  anointed 
with  heavenly  gifts  and  graces,  according 
to  the  true  faith  and  knowledge,  contend- 
ed againft  all  the  arguments  of  fottifh 
heretics,  and  moftexa&ly  confuted  them," 

His  writings. 

HE  was  the  author  of  diverfe  books, 
upon  various  fubjefts  and  occafions.  But 
(one  only  excepted,  of  which  we  fliall 
prefently  take  notice)  they  are  fo  far  loft, 
through  the  injury  of  time,  and  neglect 
of  fucceeding  ages,  that  there  are  no  other 
remains  of  them,  than  fuch  fragments  as 
may  be  met  with  in  ancient  writers,  who 
had  {Qen  them,  and  thought  fit  to  make 
quotations  from  them.  They  are  thefe 
following  ones. 

(1.)  A  book  entitled,  "  concerning 
knowledge."  It  is  a  "  concife  work," 
fays  Eufebius,  but  extremely  necefrary."* 

(2.)  A  declaration  of  the  "  apoftplic 
preaching/'  to  a  certain  brother,  named 
Marcianus. 

(3) 


388         I   R    E   N    ^E   U   S. 

(3.)  A  book  of  "  various  trafts,  or 
difquifmons." 

(4.)  An  epiftle  to  Blaftus  "  concerning 
fchifm." 

(5.)  An  epiftle  to  Florinus  "  concern- 
ing Monarchy,"  or  that  "  God  is  not  the 
author  of  evil  5"  in  which  he  addreftes  to 
him  in  words  we  fhall  have  occafion  by 
and  by  to  confider. 

(6.)  A  book  entitled,  "bgdoas,"  becaufe 
it  was  wrote,  fays  Du-pin,  againft  the  "Oc- 
tonaiyofthe  "aeons  of  the  Valentinians." 
It  was  dedicated  to  Florinus,  who,  in  ad- 
dition to  his  former  error  of  making  God 
"  the  author  of  evil,"  now  embraced  thofe 
of  Valentinus.  Jerom  calls  it,  "com- 
menurium  egrcgium,"  that  is,  "an  excel- 
lent commentary."  In  the  clofe  of  it, 
we  have  amoft  folemn  obteftation,  which 
both  Eufebius  and  Jerom  thought  worthy 
of  fpecial  notice.  It  is  in  thefc  words,  * 
*;  I  adjure  thee,  whofoever  thou  art  that 
copieft  this  book,  by  our  Lord  Jefus 
Chrift,  and  by  his  glorious  coming,  when 
be  fhall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead, 

that 

J  Eufeb,  H,  E,  Lib.  v.  cajp.  20, 


I   R   E   N   M   U   S.     389 

that  thou  compare  what  thou  haft  writ- 
ten, and  correct  it  carefully  by  the  ex- 
emplar from  whence  it  is  tranferibed  : 
and  alfo  that  thou  writeft  out  this  adju- 
ration, and  infertit  in  the  copy  fo  taken." 
Dr.  Cave  very  juftly  remarks  upon  this, 
in  the  following  words,  /<  Well  had  it 
been  with  the  ancient  writers  of  the 
church,  had  th~ir  books  been  treated  with 
this  care  and  reverence  :  more  of  them 
had  been  conveyed  down  to  us  -,  at  leaft, 
thofe  few  that  are,  had  arrived  more  found 
and  unpolluted.*' 

(7)  Diverfe  "  epiftles  to  Vi&or,"  and 
many  other  "  Paftors  of  churches",  about 
the  controverfy  relative  to  the  keeping 
cafter. 

Vol  ater  an  fpeaks  of  an  "  ecclefiafti- 
cal  hiftory"  which  he  compofed,  and  that 
Eufebius  had  borrowed  from  it.  And 
Sixtus  Senenfis  fays,  he  wrote  "  a  com- 
mentary upon  the  apocalypfe."  But 
thefe  two  laft  are  fcarce  worth  mention- 
ing ;  as  neither  Eufebius,  in  his  hiftory ; 
nor  Jerom,  in  his  "  catalogues  ;"  nor 
Honorius  Auguftudonenfis,  in  his  "  lu- 
minaries of  the  church"  5  nor  Trithemius, 

in 


39° 


I  R   E   N   M   U   S. 


in  his   book  of  "  writers,'*   make  any. 
mention  of  them* 

The  only  work  oflrenseus,  that  has 
been  handed  down  to  us,  is  his  volume, 
containing  "  five  books"  againft  the  he- 
refies  of  the  Gnoftics  and  Vaientiheans, 
entitled,  "  a  refutation  and  fubyerfion  of 
fcience  falfely  fo  called  /'  This  too,  it  fhould 
feem,  was  almoft  loft,  at  lead  to  the  wef- 
tern  churches*  For  Erafmus,  who  pub- 
lished it  in  1 516,  fays  *  "  He  might  well 
call  it  his,  having  brought  it  to  light, 
after  it  had  been  covered  with  dull,  and 
was  mouldy  and  moth-eaten." 

It  has  been  a  queftlon,  whether  he 
wrote  thefe  books  in  Greek  or  Latin. 
Erafmus  was  inclined  rather  to  think, 
they  were  originally  wrote  in  Latin.  But 
moft  learned  men  are  of  another  opinion. 
According  toBaronius,  -{-"all  confent  in 
this,  that  he  wrote  in  Greek. "  Says  Cor- 
natius,  X  "  tne  latin  copy  of  Irenseus  i* 
a  moft  faulty  tranflation,  and  may  better 
be  reftored  out  of  Epiphanius  ;  [that  is, 
fo  far  as  he  made  quotations  from  IrenseusJ 
than    afford   any   help   in  tranflating  o£ 

Epiphanius  : 

*  Prsf.  in  Iren.    fAd.  an,  13d.  %  In  praf.  ad.  Epiph- 


I   R    E   N   M   tT  ■  S.     391 

Epiphanius  :  fo  that  it  is  fl range,  Eraf- 
mus,  who  was  of  a  piercing  judgment  in 
matters  of  this  nature,  fhould  think  Ire- 
naeus  wrote  in  latin."  To  the  like  pur- 
pofe  fpeaks  thegreatScaliger,*"  1  admire, 
fays  he,  that,  from  inch  a  feverifh  La- 
tin interpreter,  as  he  is  whom  we  now 
have,  Erafmusjthould  imagine,  that  it  is 
the  true  Irenaeus,  and  that  he  imitates  the 
Greeks.  That  latin  interpreter  was 
weak,  and  either  omitted,  or  depraved, 
many  things  which  he  underftood  not.' 
The  fragments  that  are  extant  in  Epi- 
phanius, as  alfo  in  Eufebius,  do  fuffici- 
ently  prove,  both  that  the  man  was  a  Gre«» 
cian,  and  that  he  wrote  in  Greek  :  nor  is 
it  to  be  doubted  of."— Du-pin,Dr.  Cave, 
Dr.  Lardner,  and  in  fhort,  the  whole 
body  of  modern  writers  fpeak  of  it,  as 
beyond  all  doubt  that  Irenaeus  wrote  in 
Greek  ;  and  their  unanimous  opinion 
alfo  is, that  the  copy  we  now  have  is  a  rude, 
barbarous,  faulty,  and  ill-favored  tranfla- 
tion.  It  is  not  therefore  eafy  to  fay,  what 
his  diftinguifhing  ftileand  manner  was  in 
thefe  books.  Probably  it  was,  as  Dr. 
Cave  fays,  "  fimple,  unaffe&ed,  vulgar, 
and  ordinary,  embofled,  it  is  like,  and 
Eee  hs 

.  *  In  eptf,  ad  Thomfonum,  num.  230, 


392     I   R   E   N   M  U   S. 

he  confefles  as  much,  with  the  natural 
language  of  the  country  where  he  lived  ; 
nor  had  he  ft  tidied  the  art  of  rhetoric, 
the  ornaments  of  fpeech,  or  had  any  fkill 
in  fhe  elaborate  methods  and  artifices  of 
perfuafion,  as  he  modefty  apologies  for 
fymfelf."  * 

The  contents  of  this  volume  are  briefly 
and  fumi'iiarily  contained  in  the  following 
abAraSk. 

In  the  firft  book,  having  largely  de- 
fcribed  the  heretical  tenets  of  the  Valen- 
tinians,  he  oppofes  to  them  the  faith  of 
all  the  churches  in  the  world,  which  he 
comprehends,  in  a  creed,  truly  catholic 
and   excellent,  -f     He   then  goes   on  to 

fhew, 

*  Praef.  ad.  L&.  prim. 
•f  This  creed  being  fo  unlike  thofe  we  met  with  in  after  ages,, 
containing,  not  metaphyseal"  niceties,  but  fuch  gofpef 
doctrines  only,  as  are  nearly  and  clolely  connected  witk 
falvation,  I  mail  think  it  worth  while  to  infert  it  here. 
r*  It  is,  (as  Irensus's  words  are)  to  believe  in  one  omni- 
potent God,  who  made  heaven,  and  the  earth,  and  the  feas> 
and  all  things  that  are  in  them  ;  and  in  one  Jefus  Chrift, 
the  Son  of  God,  incarnate  for  our  falvation  ;  and  in  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  who,  by  the  Prophets,  preached  the  mym.- 
ries  of  the  difpenfation  and  coming  of  Chrift,  his  birth  of 
a  virgin,  his  pafnon,  refurreCtion  from  the  dead,  aifump- 
ticn  in  his  flefh  into  heaven,  and  his  coming  from  heaven 
\i  the  glory  of  the  Father  to  rcftore  [recapitulate,  or 

gather 


I   R    E    N    M    U   S.      393 

ihevv,  that  all  chriftians  agree  in  this  faith; 
and  that  the  moft  learned  can  add  no- 
thing to  it,  or  make  any  changes  in  it, 
nor  the  moft  fimple  and  ignorant  dimin- 
ifh  any  part  of  it.  He  then  largely  ex- 
plains the  abfurd  notions  of  Valentinus 
and  his  difciples  ;  and,  returning  to  the 
original  of  the  heretics,  and  beginning 
with  Simon  Magus,  he  gives  an  account 
fucceflively  of  all  the  herefies  that  ap- 
peared fince  the  time  of  that  fercerer,  to 
the  time  wherein  he  wrote.  This  firft 
book  is  extremely  dry,  tedious,  and  ob- 
fcure  j  prefenting  us  with  fcarce  any 
thing  but  the  wild  conceits,  and  extra- 
vagantly abfurd  notions  of  the  primitive 
heretics.  In  the  fecond  book,  he  makes  ufc 
of  the  principles  of  thefe  heretics  to  oppofe 
their  errors  ;  fhewing  that  they  contradict 

themfelves 

gather  into  one]  all  things,  and  to  raife  the  flefli  [thebodics] 
of  all  mankind,  that  unto  Jefus  our  Lord,  and  God,  and 
Savior,  and  King,  according  to  the  good  pleafure  of  the 
Father,  every  knee  fhould  bow,  both  of  things  in  heaven, 
and  in  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  that  every  tongue 
•fhould  confefs  to  him,  and  that  he  mould  pafs  a  righteous 
fentence  upon  all,  and  fend  fpiritual  wickednelfes,  the 
angels  that  fell  and  become  apoftate,  and  alfo  ungodly, 
unrighteous,  lawlefs,  and  blafphemous  men  into  eternal 
fire;  but  that,  for  the  righteous  and  holy,  and  fuch  as  did 
keep  his  commandments,  and  abode  in  his  love,  fome  from 
the  beginning,  and  fome  by  repentance,  he  might,  grati- 
fying them  \yith  life,  beft^vv  on  them  incorrupt ibilUy, 
and  etenv.il  glory." 


394     I    R    E    N    M    U    S. 

themfelves,and  that  their  notions  were  idle, 
ridiculous  whimfies.  In  the  third  book, 
he  confutes  them  by  the  authority  of  the 
facred  writings,  and  tradition  from  thofe 
who  had  f^n  and  converfed  with  the 
Apoftles.  In  the  fourth  book,  he  con- 
tinues to  prove,  that  there  is  but  one  God; 
particularly,  he  (hews  againft  Mareion, 
that  the  fame  God  is  exhibited  in  the 
old  and  new  teftament.  He  anfwers  the 
obieffions  of  the  heretics,  efpecially  thofe 
they  fetch  from  fcripture.  He  then 
gives  the  reafons  why  a  fpiritual  man, 
that  is  to  fay,  a  Chiiflian  condemns 
Pagans,  Jews,  heretics  and  fciimatics  ; 
and,  finally,  rejects  the  opinion  of  thofe 
who  affirmed,  that  men  were  naturally 
good  or  evil,  and  proves  the  liberty  of 
mankind.  In  the  laft  book,  he  treats  of 
the  fall  of  man,  of  the  redemption  by 
Jefus  Chrift,  of  the  refurredlion  of  the 
dead,  of  the  laft  judgment,  of  anti-chrift, 
and  of  the  fiate  of  fouls  after  death.— 
Thefe,  in  general,  are  the  fubjed:s  en- 
larged on  in  thele  books. 

Possibly,  there  may  have  been  an 
excefs  in  the  commendations  of  this  Fa- 
ther, on  account  of  this  work  of  his.    Dr. 

Cave 


I    R    E   N   M   U   S.     395 

Cave  fays,  there  are  evidently  to  be  feen 
here  the  mar^s  of  M  natural  acumen  and 
fubtilty  of  parts,"  as  well  as  "  maftery  of 
pfriloiophy  and  human  literature.*  Han- 
mer  reprefents  him  to  have  had  "  a  ckar 
head,"  and  to  have  made  ufe  of  "  weigh- 
ty arguments  ;H  which,  being  "  fharpen- 
ed  with  holy  zeal,"  are  fitted  "  to  pierce 
deeply  into  the  very  hearts  of  the  enemies 
of  the  truth,  to  their  fhameful  proftration, 
and  utter  overthrow."  -f  Du-pinfpeaks 
of  him  as  a  "profound  fcholar  in  all  forts 
of  knowledge,  facred  and  prophane"  ; 
cfpecially,  as  having  an  "exquifite  know- 
ledge of  the  holy  fcriptures."  J  It  is 
readily  acknowledged,  as  Erafmus  and  the 
centuriators  obferve,  that  he  had  read 
the  books  of  the  ancient  philofophers, 
Thales,  Aniximander,  Anaxagoras,  De- 
rnocritus,  Empedocles,  Plato,  Ariftotle, 
&c.  as  a^fo  of  the  poets,  tragic,  comic, 
and  lyric  :  for  he  endeavors  to  make  it 
evident,  that  theherefies  which  he  oppofes 
were  taken  from  thefe  prophane  authors, 
the  names  only  being  changed.  It  is  un- 
doubtedly true  likewife,  that  he  had  been 
much  converfant  with  the  facred  writings. 

But 

*  Lives  of  the  Fathers,  vol.  i,  p.  119.  f    View  of  anti- 
quity, p.  62.    J  Ecdef.  hift.  p,  60, 


396     I   R    E   N   M   U   S. 

But  it  may  bejuftly  queftioned,  whether 
his  judgment  was  equal  to  his  reading. 
The  learned  Photius  fays  of  him,  *  "That 
he  had  in  fome  of  his  books,  "fophifti- 
cated  the  truth  of  ecclefi^ftical  do^rines 
by  fpurious  reafonings."  This  is  a  real  fact, 
and  known  to  be  fo,  by  all  who  are  ac- 
quainted with  his  writings.  His  manner 
of  arguing  is  fometimes  weak,  not  to  fay 
trifling.  I  am  fure,  it  would  be  thought 
to  be  fo  in  any  one,  who,  at  this  day,ihould 
reafon  ashehasdone.  Ho wever,he appears, 
after  all,  to  have  been  a  pious,  learned, 
valuable  man,  whole  memory  ought  to 
be  bleffed  for  his  laborious  fervices  in  the 
caufe  of  truth.  Many  things  are  to  be 
met  with  in  his  writings  well  worth  our 
fpecial  notice  ;  though  he  fometimes 
makes  it  appear,  that  he  had  his  fail- 
ings and  imperfe£tions.  Candor  itfelf 
will  not  pretend,  that  he  has  not,  in  fome 
inftances,  deviated  from  that  unerring 
rule,  the  word  of  truth.  He,  with  other 
writers,  both  before  arid  after  him,  have 
built  fome  hay  and  ftubble  upon  the 
foundation  they  held,  which  will  not  en- 
dure the  trial  of  the  fire. 

The 

*  Cod.  120, 


1    R    E    N    M    U   S.        397 

The  learned  are  not  agreed  as  to  the 
exaft  time,  when  Irenaeus  wrote  his  "  five 
books  againft  herefies."  Dodwel  fup- 
pofes  it  to  have  been  in  176  or  177.  Maf- 
fuetini72.  Tillemont,  later  ftill,  towards 
the  end  of  the  pontificate  of  Eleutherius. 
Dr.  Lardner  fays,  "  As  tothe  time  of  his 
writing  thefe  "  five  books,"  it  is  the  opi- 
nion of  diverfe  learned  men,  that  they 
were  not  wrote,  and  publifhed  all  toge- 
ther, but  rather  at  fome  diftance  of  time." 
And,  though  he  does  not  attempt  to 
fettle  precifely  the  year,  in  which  this 
work  was  compleated,  he  places  Irenasus 
in  the  year  178  ;  though  he  is  inclined 
to  think,  his  "  books  againft  herefies" 
were  not  publifhed  quite  fo  foon. 

"  His  death,  fays  Du-pin,  was  no  lefs 
glorious  than  his  life.  For,  after  having 
governed  the  flock,  which  Jefus  Chrift 
had  committed  to  his  charge  for  24  years, 
he  fell  a  Martyr  at  Lyons,  in  the  perfe- 
ction of  the  Emperor  Severus,  which 
was  more  cruel  in  France  than  in  any 
other  part  of  the  world, anno  Chrifti  202, 
or  203.**  He  has  often  been  fpoken  of 
as  a  Martyr  by  other  learned  men.  But, 
from  thefilence  of  Tertullian,  Eufebius, 

and 


398     I   R   E   N    JE   U   S. 

and  other  ancient  Fathers  concerning 
this  matter,  it  is  very  juftly  argued  by  Dr. 
Cave,  Bafnage,  Dr.  Lardner,  and  others, 
that  there  is  no  good  reafon  to  fay  he 
died  a  Martyr.  The  moft  critical  in- 
quirers into  matters  of  this  nature  place 
his  death,  fome  in  190,  and  others  in  191, 
or  192,.  Baronius  *  extends  the  time  to 
the  nth  of  Sever  us,  or  205  th  of  Chrift. 

Testimonies  from  Iren^eus. 

Lib.  I.  cap.  3.  Having  declared  that 
faith,  he  had  before  defcribed,  was  that 
which  was  univerfally  taught,  and  re- 
ceived with  one  heart  and  mind,  he  adds 
the  following  words,  "  And  of  thofe  who 
prefidein  the  churches  [ex  iisqui  prasfunt 
ecclefiis]  he  that  would  prevail,  or  excell, 
in  his  difcourfe,  will  not  fay  otherwife." 

Lib.  iii.  Cap,  2.-— Speaking  of  Mar- 
cion,  Valentinus,  Cerinthus,  and  other 
heretics,  he  fays,  "  When  -f  we  chal- 
lenge them  to  that  apoftolic  tradition, 
which  is  preferved  in  the  churches  through 
the  fucceffions  of  the   Prefbyters  ;    they 

oppoie 

*  Ad.  An.  205. 
trCum  autem  adeamiterumtraditionem^qux  eft  abapoftolis, 
~quse  per  fuccefliones  Preibyterorum  in  ecclefiis  cuiloditur, 
[    provocamus  eos  j  adverfan'.ur  tradition!  dicentes,  fe  non 

folum 


1   R    E   N   M    U    S.     399 

oppofe  the  tradition,  pretending,  that, 
being  more  wife  than  not  only  the 
Preibyters,  but  the  Apoftles  alio,  they 
have  found  out  the  truth."— 

Lib.  ib.  cap.  3.  "  Therefore  the  apof- 
folic  tradition,  made  manifeft  all  over  the 
world,  is  prefent  in  every  church,  for  ail 
that  would  fee  the  truth  :  and  we  can 
enumerate   thofe,  who   were  constituted 

*  Bifhops  by  the  Apoftles  ill  the  chur- 
ches, and  their  fuccefibrs  even  to  us,  who 
taught  no  fuch  thing,  nor  had  any  know- 
ledge of  what  thefe  men  have  run  diftract- 
ed  about.  For  if  theApoftles  had  known 
any  hidden  myfteries,  which  they  taught 
thofe  that  were  perfect  privately,  and 
apart  from  the  reft,  they  would  more  e- 
fpecially  have  delivered  them  to  thofe  to 
whom  they  committed  the  churches  them- 
felves;  for  they  would,  that  they  fhould 
be  perfefr  and  unblamable  in  all  things-^ 
whom  they  left  their  fucceifors,  deliver- 
ing to  them  their  own  place  of  mafterfhip, 

F  f  f  or, 

folum  Prelbyteris,  fed  etiam  apoftolis  eriftentes  fapiento- 
res,  finceram  invsnilTe  veritatem. — ' 

*  "  Et  habcmus  annumerare  eos  qui  ab  apoftolis  inftituti 
funt  Epifcopi  in  ecclefiiis,  et  fuccdfores  eorum  usque  ad 
nos,  qui  nihil  tale  docuerunt."— 

f  **  Quos  et  fuccdfores  relinquebant,  fuum  ip  forum  locum 
Magefterii.  tradentes."-— 


4G0     I   R    E    N    tE    U    S. 

or  (as  others  tranflate  the  word)  of 
being  teachers.  But  becaufe  it  would  be 
tedious,  in  fufch  a  volume  as  this,  to  enu- 
merate [omnium  ecclefiarum  enumerare 
fucceffiones]  the  fuccefiions  in  all  the 
churches,  (lie wing  toyou  the  tradition,  and 
declared  faith,  of  the  greateft,  and  mod 
ancient,  and  noted  church,  founded  at 
Rome  by  the  two  glorious  Apoftles,  Peter 
and  Paul,  which  (he  received  from  the 
Apoftles,  and  is  come  to  us  through  the 
fuccefiions  of  the  Bifhops,  [per  fucceffi- 
ones Epifcoporum  pervenientem  ufque 
ad  nos]  we.  confound  all  who  conclude 
otherwife  than  they  ought,  by  what  means 
foever  they  do  fo  ;  whether  it  be  from  a 
wicked  endeavour  to  pleafe  themfelves, 
cr  from  vain-glory,  or  blindnefs,  or  an 
vmfound  opinion.  To  this  church,  * 
becaufe  of  its  more  potent  principality, 
it  is  neceffary  all  other  churches  fhould 
agree  -,  that  is,  the  faithful  everywhere  ; 
in  which  agreement,  that  tradition  which 
is  from  the  Apoftles  is  preferved  always 
by  thofe  who  are  fcattered  everywhere. 
The  Apoftles  therefore,  founding  and 
inftru&ing  that  church,  delivered  to  Li- 
nus 

*  "  Ad  hanc  enim  ecclefiam,  propter  potentiorem  prinpi* 
jpaliutem,  neocfle  eft  omnem  convenire  eccleliam,'' 


I    R    E    N    M    U    S.        4oi 

nus  *  the  overfight  of  adminiftring  in  it. 
Paul  makes  mention  of  this  Linus  in  his 
cpiftles  to  Timothy.  Anacletus  fucceed- 
cd  him.  And  after  him,  -f  in  the  third 
place,  Clemens  obtained  the  epifccpate 
from   the  Apoftles  ;   who  both  faw  the 

Apoftles,   and  conferred   with  them. 

To  this  Clement  fucceeded  Euariftus  -, 
and  to  Euariftus,  Alexander  ;  and  Sixtus, 
the  fixth  from  the  Apoftles,  was  confti- 
tuted ;  and  after  him  Telefphorus,  who 
was  alfo  a  gloriousMartyr ;  and  then  Hy-» 
ginus  ;  after  him,  Pius  ;  after  whom, 
Anicletus  -,  thenEleutherius  had  the  epif- 
copate,  J  in  the  twelfth  place  from  the 
'Apoftles.  By  this  ordination  and  fuc- 
ceffion,  that  tradition  in  the  church,  and 
publication  of  the  truth,  which  is  from 
the  Apoftles,  hath  come  even  to  us.  And 
this  is  a  full  demonstration,  that  it  is  the 
one,  and  the  fame  life-giving  faith,  that* 
from  the  Apoftles,  untill  now,  hath  been 
delivered,  and  preferved  in  the  church 
in  Corinth.    Polycarp  alfo,  who  was  not 

only 

*  "LinoEpifcopatum  admin  ift  rand  ae  ecclefiae  tradiderunt."— 
f  "Poft  eum,in  tertioloco>abApoftolis,E,pifcopatamfortitiir 

Clemens."--- 
J  '*  Nunc  duodecimo  loco,  Epifcopatum.  ab  Apoftolis  habet; 

Eleutherius.      Hac  ordinatione,   et  fuccelfione,  ea  quae 

eft  ab  Apoftolis  in  eccbiia  traditio,  et  veritatis  piv;cQ^ 

niatio,  pervenit  ufque  ad  aos."— 


4c2     I   R   E   N   JE   U   S. 

only  inftructed  by  the  Apoftles,  and  con- 
yerfant  with  many  of  thole  who  faw  our 
Lord,  but  likewife  by  the  Apoftles  * 
conformed  Bifliop  in  Afia,  in  the  church 
of  Smyrna,  whom  alfo  we  faw  in  the  firft 

of  our  age. Thefe  things  he  taught* 

having  learned  them  from  the  Apoftles  ; 
which  he  alfo  delivered  to  the  church, 
and  they  only  are  true.  All  the  churches 
;n  Afia  tefhfie  to  thefe  things,  and  they 
who  fucceeded  Polycarp  even  to  this 
day."— 

Lib.  ib.  cap.  14.  For  he  [Paul]  appli- 
ed himfelf  lo-f  the  Bifhops  andPrefbyters 
convened  at  Miletus,  who  were  of  Ephe- 
ius,  and  the  other  neighbouring  cities, 
becauie  he  was  going  in  hafte  to  Jerufa- 
iem  to  keep  Pentecoft,  teftifying  many 
things  to  them,  and  telling  them  what 
would  happen  at  Jerufalem. 

Lib.  iv.  cap.  43--- Wherefore  we  ought  $ 
to  obey  thofe  Preibyters  in   the  church, 

who 

*  "  Sed  etiain  nb  Apoftolis  in  Afia,  in  ea  quse  eft  Smyrnis 

ecclefia  conftitutus  Epifcopus."— 
f  — "  In  raileto  enim  convocatis  Epifcopis  et  Prefbyteris, 
■'  qui  erant  ab  Ephefo,  ct  a  reliquis  proximis  civitatibus."-- 
J  t(  Quapropter  eis  qui  in  ecclefia  funt  Preibyteris  obaudirc 

pportet,  his  qui  fucceifonem  habent  ab  Apoftolis,  fcut 


I    R    E   N   M   U   S.     403 

who  have  fucceffion,  as  we  have  fhewn, 
from  the  Apoftles  ;  who,  with  the  fuc- 
ceffion of  the  Epifcopate,  received  the 
certain  gift  of  truth,  according  to  the 
good  pleafure  of  the  Father.  As  for  the 
reft  who  depart  from  the  principal  fuc- 
ceffion, they  are  to  be  fufpefted  as  he- 
retics, in  what  place  foever  they  are  collect- 
ed.-—- 

Lib.  ib.  cap.  44. — And  truly  they  * 
who  are  thought  by  many  to  be  Prefbyters, 
ferve  their  own  pleafures,  and  not  having 
the  fear  of  God  in  their  hearts,  reproach 
the  other  [Prefbyters,]  and  are  lifted  up 
with  pride  of  the  principal  feffion,  and  do 
wickednefs  in  fecret. — We  ought  there- 
fore to  withdraw  from  all  fuch,  and 
adhere,  as  we  have  faid,  to  thofe  who  keep 

the 

oftendimus  ;  qui,  cum  Epifcopatus  fuccefTione,  charifma 
veritatis  certain,  fecundum  placitum  patris,  acceperunt. 
Reliquos  vero  qui  abfiftunt  a  principali  fucceffione,  et 
quocunque  loco  colliguntur,  fufpe&os  habere,  vel  quail 
hereticos." 

*  "  Qui  vero  crediti  quidem  funt  a  multis  efle  Prefbyteri, 
ferviunt  autem  fuis  voluptatibus,  et  non  praeponunt  timo- 
rem  Dei  in  cordibus,  fed  contumeliis  agunt  reliquos,  e$ 
principalis  confeffionis  tqmere  elati  flint,  et  in  abfcoafis 
agunt  mala."-— 


4o4     i  R  E  N  m u  s. 

the  Apoftles  doftrine,  and  together  with 
the  order  of  Prefbyters,  *  do  {hew  forth 
found  fpeech  and  an  inoffenfive  converfa- 
tion.— Such  Prefbyters  [tales  Prefbyteros] 
the  church  nourifhes— concerning  whom 
theProphet  fays,*f  "I  will  giveyouPrinces 
in  peace,  and  BiLhops  in  righteoufncfs."  , 

Lib.  ib.  cap.  45.  Where  therefore  one 
fhall  find  fuch,  Paul  teaching  fays,  "  God 
hath  put  in  the  church  firft  Apoftles,  fe- 
condly  Prophet,  thirdly  Teachers.  Where 
therefore  the  gifts  of  God  are  put,  there 
we  ought  to  learn  the  truth,  with  whom  J 
is  that  fucceffion  of  the  church  which  is 
from  the  Apoftles."-— A  little  further  we 
can  have  the  following  words,  "  As  I 
heard  from  a  certain  Prefbyter,  [a  quodam 
Prefbytero]  who  heard  from  thole  who 
faw  the  Apoftles,  and  who  learned  from 
thefc."— 

Lib.   ib.   cap.  47.      The    Prefbyters 
[Prefbyteri]  demonftrated  that  they  were 
extreme  foolifh,  who,  from  what  hap- 
pened 

*  "  Et  cum  Prefbyterii  ordine  fermonem  fanumr-r 

t  "  Et  dabo  principes  tuos  in  pace,  et  Epifcopos  titps  in 

juftitia." 
t  ".Apud  quos  eft  ea  quseft  abApoftolis  ecclefoe  fiiccefTio," 


I   R    E   N   M   U   S.     405 

pened  to,  thofe  who  were  difobedient  to 
God,  attempted  to  introduce  another 
Father." 

Lib.  ib.  cap.  49.  "  As  a  certain  Pref- 
byter  faid,  [ficut  etPrefbyter  dicebat]  they 
who  throw  it  in  our  teeth,  that  the  peo- 
ple, going  forth  by  the  command  of 
God,  took  veffels,  and  veftments,  of  all 
forts  from  the  Egyptians."-- - 

Lib.  ib.  cap.  52.  Mention  is  tranfient- 
ly  made  of  "  a  ienior  difciple  of  the  Apof- 
tles"  [ienior  Apoftolorum  difcipulus.J 
And  in  the  fame  chapter  the  "  Prefbyters 
of  the  church"  are  fpoken  of  as  "  thofe 
with  whom  is  the  apoftolic  dodtrine  ;" 
"  apud  eos  qui  in  ecclefia  funtPrefbytcri, 
apud  quos  eftapoftolicadoftrina." 

Lib.  ib.  cap.  63.  "  True knowledgeis  the 
do&rine  of  the  Apoftles,  and  the  ancient 
ftate  of  the  church  all  over  the  world, 
and  the  chara&er  of  the  body  of  Chrift, 
according  to  the  fucceffions  *  of  Bifhops, 
to  whom  they  delivered  the  church  in 
every  place;  which  do&rine  hath  reached 

us 

*  "  Secundum  fucce (Hones  Epifcoporum,  quibus  illi   e2m 
qu#  in  uaoquoque  loco  eft  ecckfiam  tradiderunt."— 


406     I   R   E  N   JE   U   S.4 

us,  preferved  in  its  moft  full  delivery, 
without  any  fiction  of  fcriptures,  or  ^cl- 
ing to,  or  taking  from  them."--- 

Lib.  v.  cap.  5.—-"  And  God  planted 
paiadife  in  Eden  eaftward,  and  there  he 
put  the  man  whom  he  had  formed.  And 
from  thence,  being  difobedient,  he  was 
caft  out  into  this  world.  *  Wherefore 
the  Prefbyters,  who  are  the  dilciples  of  the 
Apoftles,  fay,  that  thofe  who  are  tranfla- 
ted,  are  tranflated  from  thence". 

Lib.  ib.  cap.  20.  For  all  thofe  «f-  are  far 
later  than  the  Bifhops,  to  whom  the  Apof- 
tles delivered  the  churches  ;  and  this  we 
have  carefully  made  manifeft  in  the  third 
book. — They  therefore  who  have  the 
truth  publifhed  by  the  church,  charge  the 
holy  Preibyters  with  unfkilfulnefs,  J  not 
confidering  how  far  a  weak  religious  per- 
fon  is  from  being  a  blafphemer,  and 
impudent  fophifter". 

Lib.  ib.  cap.  36.- — "  The  Prefby- 
ters,  the   difciples    of  the  Apoftles  fay, 

[dicunt 

*  "  Quapropter    dicunt    Prefbyteri,   qui    funt  Apoftolo* 

rum  difcipuli."-— 
f  M  Omnes  enim  ii  valde  pofteriores  funt  quam  Epifcopi, 

quibus  apoftoli  tradiderunt  ecclefias."— 
J  "  Lnperitiam  fanttcrwn  Prefbyterorum  arguunt." 


I   R    E   N    M    U    S* 


407 


[die u tit  Prefbyteri,  apoftolorum  difcipuli] 
this  is  according  to  the  order  and  difpo- 
fition  of  thofe  who  are  faved"---. 

These  are  all  the  paffages,  I  have  been 
able  to  find  in  Irenaeus's  five  books  againft 
herefies,  that  relate  to  the  fubject  we  are 
upon.  But  two  very  confiderable  frag* 
ments  of  his  other  "writings"  have  been 
preferved  by  Eufebius,  which  I  may  not 
omit,  upon  this  occafion,  to  bring  to  view* 

The  firft  is  a  quotation  from  an  "  epif- 
tie  of  his  to  Florinus,"in  which  he  fays,  * 
"  This  do£trine,  O  Florinus,  that  I  may 
boldly  fpeak  the  truth,  is  not  found  : 
this  doctrine  difagreeth  with  the  church, 
and  bringeth  fuch  as  liften  to  it  into  ex- 
treme impiety  :  this  dodtrine,  not  even 
the  heretics  which  are  out  of  the  church, 
ever  dared  to  publifh:  this  doftrine,  fuch 
as  were  Prefbyters  before  us  [pi pro  emon* 
Pr^^^m,]anddifciplesoftheApoftles,ne- 
ver  delivered  unto  thee.''  And  having  men- 
tioned Polycarp,  and  faid  fome  things  of 
Vim,  he  goes  on,  "  I  am  able  to  teftify 
before  God,  that  if  that  holy  and  apoftical 
G  g  g  Prefbyter 

*  Eufeb.  lib,  v.  cap,  to, 


4o8     I    R    E    N    vE    U    S. 

Prefbyter  [apoflolicos  Prejbuteros']  had  heard 
any  fuch  thing,  he  would  at  once  have 
reclaimed,  and  (lopped  his  ears,  and  after 
his  manner  pronounced,  "  Good  God  ? 
into  what  times  haft  thou  referred  me  t 
Yea,  he  would  inftantly  have  (hunned  the 
place  where  he  had  heard  fuch  fpeeches." 
The  fecond,  which  is  eminently  per- 
tinent to  the  point  in  debate,  is  contain- 
ed in  hb  "  ep-iftle  to  Victor"  of  Rome, 
which  was  extant  in  the  days  of  Eufe- 
bius,  though  it  has  long  fince  been  loft. 
The  wards  are  thefe,  *  "  And  the  Pref- 
by ters  [  oi  Pre/buteroi  ]  before  Soter, 
who  were  over  the  church  which  thou 
govern  eft  [oi  profi  antes  tes  ecckfias  es  nun 
apbege]  I  mean  Anicetus,  and  Pius,  arid 
Huginus,  with  Telefphorus  and  Sixtus  ; 
they  did  by  no  means  obferve  it  [he  is 
fpeaking  of  the  day  of  keeping  eafter  ;] 
neither  did  they  allow   thofe  who   were 

with   them    to  obferve   it. And  thofe 

Prefbyters  that  were  before  you  [oi pro  fou 
Pre/buteroi,']  though  they  did  not  obferve 
it  themfe!ves,yet  they  lent  theeucharift  to 
thofe  of  other  churches  who  did  obferve  it. 
And  when  bleffed  Polycarp,  in  the  days  of 
Anicetus,  came  to  Rome,  and  there  was 
a  fmall  controverfy  between  them  upon 

fcthtg 

2  Eufcb  H,  E,  Lib,  v,  cap.  24; 


I    R    E    N    Es   U    S.        409 

other  things,  they  foon  faluted  each  other 
with  a  kiis,  and  there  was  no  great  con- 
tention between  them  upon  this  head. 
Anicetus  was  unable  to  perfuade  Poly- 
carp  not  to  retain  that  which  he  had 
always  obferved  with  John,  the  difciple 
of  our  Lord,  and  the  reft  of  the  Apoftles, 
with  whom  he  had  been  converfant  :  nei- 
ther did  Polycarp  much  perfuade  Anicetus 
to  obferve  it,  fince  he  told  him  that  he 
ought  to  retain  the  cuftom  of  the  Prefby- 
ters  to  whom  he  fucceeded  [ton  pro  auton 
Pre$buteron.\ 

Observations     and    remarks    upon 
the  testimonies  from  Iren^eus. 

NOTHING  is  more  obvioufly  evident, 
fo  far  as  we  regard  the  above  paffages, 
than  that  Irenaeus  cannot  be  called  in  as 
a  witness,  either  to  the  claim  or  ex- 
ercise of  thofe  powers,  which  Epifco- 
palians  pretend  are  eflential  to  the  office 
of  Bifhops.  For  he  no  where  fays,  that 
it  is  the  right  of  Bifhops,  in  diftinetion 
fromPrefbyters,to  confer  holy  orders; 
or  that  they  were  the  perfons,  who  did  in 
fact  confer  them,  either  in  the  age  in 
which  he  lived,  or  any  other  :  neither  does 

he 


4io     I    R    E    N    JE   U   S. 

be  affirm, directly  or  indirectly,  that  it  was. 
any  part  of  the  work  of  Bifhops,  much  lefs 
their  appropriate  discriminate  work,  to 
govern  Presbyters,  or  that  they 
ever  did  fo.  And,  inftead  of  declaring, 
that  Bifhops  are  officers  in  the  church 
distinct  from,  and  superior  to,  Pref- 
byters,  he  fpeaks  of  them,  as  clearly  and 
fully  as  he  could  have  done,  in  language 
neceflarily  leading  us  to  look  upon  them 
as  fuftaining  the  same  office  only  in 
the  church.  No  writer,  fince  the  apol- 
tolic  times,  has  more  exactly,  or  frequent- 
ly, copied  after  the  infpired  penmen,  in 
the  promifcuous  ufe  of  the  words  Bifhops 
and  Prefbyters.  He  ufes  thefe  words 
indifferently,  and  frequently,  to  point 
put  the  fame  officers  in  the  church.  And 
vmlefs  when  he%ules  the  word,  Bifhops,  he 
means  the  fame  church  officers,  as  when 
be  ufes  the  word,  Prefbyters,  there  is  nei- 
ther coherence,  confiftency,  or  the  leaft 
force  of  argument,  in  moft  of  the  para- 
ges, in  which  thefe  words  are  mention- 
sq!.  As  this  is  an  important  point  in 
the  prefent  debate,  I  (hall  enlarge  in  its 
illuflration,  and  take  occafion  for  it  by 
anfwering  what  is  pleaded*  from  Irenaeus, 
in  favor  of  Epifcopacy. 

The 


I    R    E   N    M   U    S.     411 

The  grand  plea  is,  that  he  is  particular 
in  giving  us  the  line  of  fucceffion  ;  that 
he  does  it  in  fingle  perfons  ;  and  that 
thefe  perfons  are  frequently  and  £xpreffly 
called  Bifhops  :  evidently  importing  a 
diflin&ion  of  place,  order,  or  office,  be- 
tween them  and  Prefbyters. 

The  anfwer  is  eafy,  and,  as  I  imagine, 
ftrongly  conclusive.  It  is  allowed,  reck- 
oning the  fucceffion  by  fingle  perfons  in- 
timates fome  difference  betwixt  the  nam- 
ed perfons,  and  others  of  the  fame  church, 
as  the  ground,  or  reafon,  of  their  being 
fingled  out.  But  what  conceivable 
need  is  there,  unlefs  to  ferve  a  turn,  to 
fuppofe,  that  the  difference  muft  be  fo 
great  as  to  import  an  imparity  of  or- 
der, or  office  ?  Are  there  no  inftan- 
ces,  in  which  it  is  certain,  particular 
perfons  have  been  diftinguifhed  from  their 
brethren  of  the  fame  order,  to  anfwer  the 
like  end  ?  Biihop  Stillingfleet  has  told  us 
of  fome  admirably  well  adapted  to  the 
purpofe.  Says  he,  *  "  At  Athens,  after 
"  they  grew  weary  of  their  ten  years 
"  Archontes,  the  people  chofe  nine  every 

«  year 

*  Jren,  p.  300* 


4ia     I   R   E   N   JE   U   S- 

<f  year  to  govern  the  affairs  of  the  com- 
*f  rfton-wealth.  Thefe  nine  enjoyed  a 
<f  parity  of  power  among  themfelves, 
*'  and  therefore  had  a  place  where  they 
"  confulted  together  about  the  matters 
u  of  ftate,  which  was  called  Stategion,  as 
"  Demofthenes,  Plutarch,  and  others  tell 
"  us  :  now  although  they  enjoyed  this 
V  equality  of  power,  yet  one  of  them 
"  had  greater  dignity  than  the  reft,  and 
"  therefore  was  called  Archon  by  way  of 
"  excellency,  and  his  name  only  was  fet 
€t  in  the  public  records  of  that  year,  and 
"  therefore  was  called  Archon  eponu- 
€i  mos  ;  and  the  year  was  reckoned  from 
"  him,  as  Paufanias  and  Julius  Pollux 
"  inform  us.  Here  we  fee  now  the  fuc- 
"  ceffion  clear  in  one  fmgle  perfon,  and 
"  yet  no  fuperiority  of  power  in  him 
"  over  his  colleagues.  The  like  may  be  ob- 
"  fervedof  the  Ephon  and  bidicei&x.  Sparta. 
The  number  of  the  ephorz  was  always 
five  from  their  firft  inftitution  by  Ly- 
curgus,  and  not  nine,  as  the  Greek 
etymologift  imagines.  Thefe  likewife 
"  enjoyed  a  parity  of  power  ;  but  among 
"  thefe,  to  give  name  to  the  year,  they 
"  made  choice  of  one  who  was  called 
u  Eponumos   here   too,  as  the  Archon  at 

Athens  $ 


<c 


(t 


I    R    E    N    M    U    S.      4r5 

0 

"  Athens  ;  and  him  they  called  Pre/lota 
?  ton  epbGron,  asPlutarch  tells :  where  we 
**  have  the  very  name  Proejlos  attributed 
i*  to  him  that  had  only  this  primacy 
"  of  order,  without  any  fuperiority  of 
*;  power,  which  is  ufed  by  Juftin  Martyr 
"  of  the  Prefident  of  allemblies  among 
"  Chriftians.  Now  from  hence  we  may 
4(  evidently  fee,  that  meer  fucceflion  of 
f  fome  fingle  perfons  named  above  the 
"  reft,  in  the  fucceffions  of  apoftolical 
"  churches,  cannot  enforce  any  fuperio- 
"  rity  of  power  in  the  perfons  fo  named, 
t(  above  others  fuppofed  to  be  joint  go- 
"  vernors  of  the  churches  with  therrT. 
There  was,  we  fee,  among  the  Archon- 
tes  at  Athens,  and  the  Ephori  at  Sparta, 
a  fenior  in  office,  a  chair-man,  or  prefi- 
dent ;  ,and  he  was,  for  this  reafon,  fingled 
out,  from  his  brethren  of  the  fame  office- 
power,  to  give  denomination  to  the  year. 
The  like  may  be  laid  in  the  cafe  before 
us.  Among  the  Prcfbyters  in  each  church, 
who  all  fuftained  the  fame  office,  and 
were  vefted  with  the  fame  effential  pow- 
ers, there  might  be  a  pndes,  Modera- 
tor, or  prime-Prefbyter  >  *  and  he  might, 

on 

*  Tc  maybe  worthy  of  fpecial  notice  here,  Irenaeus  himfcif 
very  plainly  intimates,  that,  among  Presbyters,  or 
thofe  who  were  of  that  order   which  conftituted  the 

Presbyterate 


414     I   R    E    N    M    U    S. 

on  this  account,  be  fele&ed  to  have  his 
name  mentioned  in  the  fucceffion  :  or  his 
name  might  be  inferred,  merely  as  being 
the  fenior-Prefbyter,  or  becaufe  he  was 
beft  known,  and  moft  celebrated  for  his 
learning,  piety,  and  ftri6t  attachment  to 
the  apoftolic  dodrine.  This  difference 
of  character,  without  the  fuppofnion  of 
any  difference  in  point  of  office,  or  pow- 
er, will  fully  account  for  a  fucceflipn  as 
reckoned  in  a  line  of  fingle  perfons;  and 
it  is  fufficient,  could  nothing  elfe  be  faid, 
to  render  their  arguing  invalid,  who, 
merely  from  hence,  would  conclude,  that 
thefe  particularly  diftinguifhed  and  named 
perfons  were  of  a  fuperior,  and  diftinft 
order,  in  the  churches,  from  the  Prefby- 
ters  belonging  to  them. 

But,  to  give   ftrength  to  this    argu- 
ment, it  is  further  faid,  fingle  perfons  are 

not 

Presbyter  ate,  there  were  fome,  in  his  day,  who, 
"  not  having  the  fear  of  God  in  'fheir  hearts,"  but  being 
"  elated  with  the  dignity  of  the  f  i  rst  or  p  R  i  n  c  i  f  a  l 
session,  contumelioufly  treated  the  other  Prefbyters." 
Vid.  lib.  iv.  cap.  44.  This  first  session  was  not,  in 
the  view  of  Irenaeus,  the  feilion  of  Bishops,  as  officers 
in  the  church  of  a  fuperior  order  to  that  of  Preibyters ; 
for  he  here  confiders  them  all  as  fuftaining  the  same 
order  ;  though  in  this  fame  order  there  was  a  difference 
in  degree.  He  here  fpeaks  of  a  principal  ses- 
sion, that  is,  one  that  belonged  to  the  Prime-Pres- 
byter,  the  hud  or  prases  of  the  Presbytery, 


I   R   E   N   JE   V   $.        415 

t!o\  only  named  in  the  fucceffion,  bat 
rhey  are  frequently  and  exprefily  called: 
Sifhops.  Very  true  ;  but  then  it  is  as 
true,  that  Irernsas  has  taken  all  proper 
care,  as  though  he  had  it  in  defign,  to; 
guard  again'ft  any  ones  miffcaking  his 
te  (ucceffion  of  Bifliops,"  for  the  fuc- 
ceffion of  a  iC  fuperior  order"  in  the 
church  to  that  of  Prefhyters.  This  is 
particularly  worthy  of  notice.  I  fhall 
accordingly  endeavor  to  fet  it  in  the  clear- 
er!: and  ffrongeft  point  of  light.  And  I 
know  of  no  way  in  which  I  can  better  do' 
this,  than  by  placing  a  few  of  the  forego- 
ing paffages,  upon  the  head  of  fucceffion, 
in  two  oppofite  columns.  It  will  thent 
appear,  at  firft  fight,  to  every  intelligent 
unprejudiced  reader,  that  Irenaeus  means, 
a-nd,  unlefs  he  is  made  to  fpeak  norifernfe, 
muftmean  by  the"  fucceffion  of  Biilrops,'a 
one  and  the  fame  thing  with  the  "  fuc- 
ceffion of  Prefbyters,"  and  vice-werfa. 

Lib.  iiio  cap.  y.  Lib.  Hi.  cap.  2. 

The  apoftolic  tra-  Wren  we  chal- 

drition  is  prefent  in  Isnge  them  [the  he- 

every  church.  Wecan  relics}  to  that  apo- 

enumerate  thofe  who  flolical      tradition, 

were  conitituted  Bi-  which   is  prefervect 

shops  Hhfc        btf 


4  id     I    R    E    N    M    U    S. 

shops  by  the  Apof-  in      the     churches 

ties  in  the  churches,  through    the    sue- 

and    their    succes-  cession     of     the 

sors     even    to     us,  Presbyters,    they 

who  taught  no  fuch  oppofe  the  tradition, 

thing.— -By  fliewing  pretending  that  they 

the  tradition  and  de-  are  wifer   than  not 

dared    faith  of  the  only    the    Presby- 

greateft  and  mod  an-  ters,  but  the  Apof- 

cientchurchofRome  ties  alfo. 
which  fhe  received 
from  the  Apoftles, 
and  is  come  to  us 
through  the  suc- 
cessions OF  THE 
Bishops,  we  con- 
found.— 

Lib.  'iv.   cap.  53.  Lib.  iv.  cap.  43. 

True  knowledge  Obey  thosePres- 

h  thedoftrineof  the  byters      in      the 

Apoftles    according  church,    who  have 

to  the    succession  succession,  as  we 

ofBishops,  to  whom  havefhe wn,from  the 

they    delivered    the  Apoftles;  who,  with 

church  in  every  place,  the  succession  of 

which  doftrine  hath  the   Episcopate, 

reached  us  preferved  received  the  gift  of 

in  its  mod  full  de-  truth,  according  to 

livery. —           Lib,  tl\p 


I  'R    E    N    JE    U    S. 


417 


the    good    pleafure 
of  the  Father.— 


Lib.  v.  cap.  20. 

These  are  far  la- 
ter than  the  Bishops 
towhom  the  Apos- 
tles DELIVERED 
THE       CHURCHES     : 

and  this  we  have 
carefully  made  ma- 
nifeft  in  the  third 
book. 


Lib.  iii.  cap.  3. 

— The  Apoftles, 
founding  and  in- 
ftru&ingthat  church 
[thechurchofRome] 
delivered  to  Linus, 
the  Episcopate — 
Anacletus 


Lib.  iv.  cap.  44. 

We     ought 

therefore  to  adhere 
to  those  Pres- 
byters who  KEEP 
the  Apostles  doc- 
trine, and,  toge- 
ther with  the  ORDER 
of  thePresbyte- 
r  ate,  dofhew  forth 
found  fpeech.— Such 
Presbyters  the 
church  nourifhes  ; 
and  offuch  the  Pro- 
phet fays,  "  I  will 
give  them  Princes 
in  peace,and  Bishops 
in  righteoufneis. 

Epiftle  to  Viftor. 
Those  Presby- 
ters [thatis,in  the 
church  of  Rome] 
before  Soter,  who 
governed  the 
church  which  thou 
[that 


4i8     I   R   E   N  M   U    S, 


Anacletus  succeed- 
ed him.  After  him, 
Clemens  obtained 
the  Episcopate 
frotn  theApoftles— 
ToClemem  succe- 
ed Euariftus  ;  to 
him,  Alexander  ; 
then  Sixtus  ;  and 
after  h;m  Telefpho- 
rus  ;  then  Hugy- 
nus ;  after  him  Pius ; 
then  Anicetus  :  and 
when  Soierhad  fuCr 
ceeded  Anicetus, then 
gleutherius  had  the 
Episcopate  in  the 
twelfth  place.  By 
this  succession,  that 
tradition  jn  the 
church,  and  publi- 
cation of  the  truth, 
which  is  frpm  the 
Apoftje?,  is  come  to 


[that  is,  Victor]  now 
g ov e r  n  e  o  r  ,1  mean, 
Anicetus,  Pius,  Hu- 
gypus,  Teleiphorus, 
and  Sixtus,  they  did 
not  obferve  it  [that 
is,  the  day  on  which 
he  obfei  vedEfther]— 
And  thole  Presby- 
ters WHOP  RECEED- 

ed  you, though  they 
did  not  obferve  it 
themfelves,  yet  fent 
theEucharifttothofe 
[Presbyters]  of  other 
churches  who  did 
obferve  it.  And 
when  blefled  Po- 
ly carkp,  in  the  days 
of  Anicetus,  came 
toRome,--hedid  not 
much  perfuade  Ani- 
cetus to  obferve  it,  as 
he  [that  is,  Anice- 
tus] declared  that  the 
cuftomof  the  Pres- 
byters who  WERE 

HIS      PREDECESSORS 

fhould  be  retained. 
If 


I    R    E   N    M   U    S.      419 

If  it  would  not  be  conftrued  an  affront 
ip  the  reader's   underftanding,   I  would 
pbferve,  with  reference  to  the  above  in- 
sertions, that  Iren^us  has  not  only  pro- 
Hiifcuoufly  ufed  the  names,  Bifhops,  and 
Prefbyters,  but  has  done  it  in  a  manner 
that  renders  it  really  impoffible,he  fhould 
mean  by  Bifhops,  if  he  had  any  meaning 
at  all,  an  order  of  officers  in  the  church 
fuperior  to,  and1  diftinft  from,  Prefbyters  ; 
or,  by  Prefbyters,   any  order   but  that  [of 
Bifhops.      Does   he,  in   one  place,  when 
fpeaking  of  the  fucceffion  in  the  church 
of  Rome,  particularly  name  Linus,  Ana- 
cletus,   Clemens,  &c.  as  being  Bifhops, 
a?  having  obtained  the  Epifcopate  there  ? 
In  another,  while  fpeaking  of  the  fame 
fucceffion,  and  in  the  fame  fingle  perfons, 
he  as  expreflly   calls  them  Prefbyters   % 
yea,  he  gives  no  higher  a  flile  to  the  pre- 
deceffors  of  Victor,    the  then  Bifliop   of 
Rome,  than   that  of  Prefbyters  ;  and  he 
applies  the  fame  name  to  thofe  who  pro- 
ceeded Eleutherius,  another  Bifhop  of  this 
jame  church.      Does  he  affirm,   "  that 
the  apoftolic  doctrine  was  handed  down 
through  the  fucceffion  of  Bifhops  ?"  He 
as  peremptorily    declares,  "  that  it  was 
preferved  in  the  church,  through  the  fuc- 
ceffion  of  Prefbyters,"      Does  he   make 

mention 


42o      I    R    E    N    JE    U    S. 

mention  of  Bifliops  "  as  constituted  in 
the  churches  by  the  Apoftles   ?"    He  ex- 
prefles  the  fame  fentiment,  when  he  fays, 
«  the  Prefbyters  in  the  church  have  fuc- 
ceflion  from  the  Apoftles  :"  nor  can  we 
miftake  his  meaning,  if  we  only  confider, 
that,  in  the  immediately  following  words, 
he  calls  this  very  fucceffion,  "  the  fuc- 
ceflion  of  the  Epifcopate  ;"  and,  in  ano- 
ther place,  makes  the  remark,  "  luchPref- 
byters  the  church  nouriflieth  -"  and  intro- 
duces  the  Prophet    faying,  "  I  will  give 
you  Princes  in    peace,  and    Bifliops    in 
righteoufnefs."  In  vain  muftit  be  to  look 
for  a  fucceffion  of  Bifliops,  in   Irenaeus's 
writings,   diftincl  from  Prefbyters,   and 
vefted   with    fuperior  powers,    when    he 
attributes  not  only  "  the  fucceflion,"   but 
f  the  fucceffion  in  Epifcopacy,"  to  Pref- 
byters -y    indifferently  calling  the    fingle 
perfons  he  reckons  in  the  fucceflion,   Bi- 
fliops and  Prefbyters.      It  would    fpoil 
his  reafoning,  render  itinconfiftent,  weak, 
confufed,   and  fallacious,  to  fuppofe  he 
fhould  mean  by  Bifliops  a  different  order 
of  officers  in  the  church  from  Prefbyters, 
when  he  fo  often  ufes  thefe  names  pro- 
mifcuoufly,  and  indifferently  derives  the 
fucceflion  from  the  Apoftles  in  a  line  of 
Bifliops,  or  Prefbyters,  meaning,  by  both 
words,  the  fame  officers.  It 


I   R    E   N    M   U   S.         42i 

It  may  be  pertinently  obferved  yet  fur- 
ther, the  fucceflion  Irenaeus  has  in  view, 
is  not  a  fucceflion  of  power,  but  of  doc- 
trine. This  will  be  obvious,  at  firft 
fight,  by  looBing  over  the  foregoing  quo- 
tations from  him.  His  difpute  is  with 
the  heretics  of  that  day  ;  and  the  ufe  he 
makes  of  the  argument  from  fucceflion. 
is,  to  prove  that  they  had  departed  from 
that  doctrine,  which  had  been  handed 
down,  in  the  churches,  even  from  the 
Apoftles  to  that  time.  This  is  his  grand 
point,  and  he  keeps  to  it  ;  never  menti- 
oning the  fucceffion,  but  in  order  to  fhew, 
how,  and  from  what  original  fource,  the 
doctrine  ofChrift  had  come  down,  and 
beenprefervedin  its  purity  to  his  day.  To 
feek  therefore  for  a  fucceflion  of  power, 
inIrenaeus,istofeekforthelivingamongthe 
dead.  Henowherereafons  from  thefuccef- 
fion  in  the  churches,  in  favor  of  any  peculi- 
arity of  power  inBifhops  beyondPrefbyters, 
but  confines  his  argument  solely  to  the 
head  of  doctrine.  So  that,  it  is  impof- 
fible  to  make  any  valid  ufe  of  what  he  has 
faid  upon  fucceflion,  to  prove  a  fucceflion 
of  power  ;  much  lefs  a  fuperiority  of 
power,  appropriated  toBifhopsin  diftinc- 
tion  from  Prefbyters,  It  muft  be  previ- 
ously 


422     I    R    E    N    M  U    S. 

oufly  laid  down  as  a  poftulatum,  or  el(e 
fufficiently  made  evident,  that  the  apof- 
tolic  do&rine  could  not  have  been  hand- 
ed down  pure  and  incorrupt,  but  in  a 
line  of  fuch  Bifiiops  as  were  of  an  order 
in  the  church  fuperror  to  Prefbyters  ;  or 
any  argument  from  Irenaeus's  fucceffion 
wilt  be  eflentially  lame  and  defective.  It 
will  not  be  allowed,  before  it  has  been  va- 
lidly proved,  that  Bifhops,  in  the  appro- 
priated fenfe,  could  be  tire  only  convey- 
ers of  apoftoiic  truth.  It  is  poflible,  at 
leaftwe  may  be  permitted  to  think  it  is  fo,- 
until  we  are  convinced  of  the  contrary, 
that  this  truth  might  as  well  be  handed 
down  by  Bifliops  that  are  of  one  and  the 
fame  order  with  Prefbyters. 

It  may  add  weight  to  what  has  been 
faid  upon  thefe  teftimonies,  if  it  be  fub- 
joined,  that  the  Gallican  churches,  who 
lent  Irenaeus  to  Rome  with  an  epiftle  to- 
Eleutherius,  Bifhop  of  the  church  there, 
had  no  idea  of  that  fuperiority  of  Bifhops 
to  Prefbyters,  which  is  now  fo  much  talk- 
ed of.  For,  in  this  letter,  while  ipeaking 
in  commendation  of  him,  they  give  him 
no  higher  a  title  than  that  of  Presby- 
tia 


I    R    E    N    jE    U   S;         42^ 

^er.  *  Blondcl  has  been  very  large  and 
learned,  the  moft  fo  of  any  writer  I  have 
iten,  in  proving,  -f  that  this  letter  was 
ifent  nine  years  after  the  death  of  Pothi- 
nus,  who  was  foon  fucceeded  by  Irenaeus* 
Bifhop  of  the  church  of  Lyons  ;  that  is, 
their  Praefes,  or  Prime-Prefbyter.  It 
cannot  therefore  be  fuppofed;  with  any 
fhadow  of  reaforf,  that  the  churches,  in 
whole  name  this  letter  was'  wrote,  imagin- 
ed that  Prefbyters  were  ato  order  diftin£i 
from,  and  inferior  to,  that  of  Bifhops. 
They  would  not,  in  this  cafe,  have  fpokea 
of  him',  and  iri  the  recommendatory  pare 
of  their  letter,  as  their  Prelbyter.  Thk. 
would  haVe  been  rather  a  debaferrient* 
than  recommendation  of  hint  Bifhop^ 
Stillingfleet  has  argued  here  with  great 
cogency.  Says  he,  J  u  Irenaeus  is  fent 
fi  by  the  church  of  Lyoiis  on  a  meflage 
(i  to  the  Bifhop  of  Rome,  when,  notwith- 
"  Handing  his  being  Bifhop,,  they  call 
94  him  Prelbyter  of  that  church.  What 
94  could  any  one  imagine,  but  that  the 
"  Bifhop  was  nothing  but  the  fenior  Pref- 
"  byter,  or  one  that  had  a  primacy  of  or- 
**  der  among,  but  no  divine  right  to  a 
I  i  i  power 

*  Eufeb.  H.  E.  lib.  v.  cap.  4.       f  Apol,  pro  fentei. 
Hieion,  p.  23,  32,         I  Irsn.  p.  it%% 


424    I    R    E    N    M  U   S. 

"  power  of  jurifdiftion  over,  his  felloe 
"  Prefbyteis  ?"  And  this  reafoning  will 
*c  appear  ftillmore  forcible,if  it  be  added, 
that,  in  this  very  letter,  he  is  mention- 
ed by  the  other  Prefbyters,  as  their  "  bro- 
ther and  colleague."  So  the  words  are  in 
Eufebius,  who  has  quoted  them.  *  "  Fa- 
ther Eleutherius  !  we  wifh  you  health 
in  all  things,  and  always  in  God.  We 
have  requefted  Irenaeus,  our  brother  and 
.  colleague,  [ton  adelphon  emon,  kai  koinonoTi] 
to  d  eliver  you  thefe  letters."— They  could 
not,  with  any  manner  of  propriety,  have 
thus  lpoken  of  him,  if  he  had  been  a 
Bifhop,  meaning  hereby  an  officer  of  a 
fuperior  order  in  the  church  to  that  of 
Pi  efbyters. 

Only  one  plea  more,  that  I  know  of, 
is  fetched  from  Irenaeus  in  favor  of  the 
epifcopal  caufe.  It  is  his  ufing  that  mode 
of  fpeech,  "  Bifhops  and  Prefbyters  ;" 
which,  fay  the  prelatifts,  evidently  imports 
a  diftinclion  of  officers,  and  gives  the 
fuperiority  to  Bifhops. 

'It  is  acknowledged,  this  mode  of  dic- 
tion is  once  ufed  by  Irenaeus,     But  how 

does 

*  H,  E,  Lib.  iv,-  cap.  jj 


I   R    E   N   JE   U    S.     425 

does  he  ufe  it  ?  Not  as  his  own,  but  the 
language  rather  of  theApoftle  Paul.  The 
paflage,  in  which  the  words  are  to  be 
found,  runs  thus  :  "  He  [Paul]  applied 
himfelf  to  the  Bifhops  and  Preibyters  con- 
vened at  Miletus,  who  were  of  Ephefus, 
and  the  neighbouring  towns,  becaufe  he 
was  going  to  Jerufalem."— -Thefe  words, 
C€  Bifhops  and  Prefbyters,"  which  Ire- 
naeus  has  alluded  to,  or  rather  quoted 
from  A6fs  xx,  are  ufed  fynonimoufly  by 
the  Apoftle  Paul.  And  of  this  there  is 
no  room  for  difpute.  For,  it  is  expref- 
ly  declared,  that,  from  Miletus,  he  fent 
to  Ephefus,  and  called  the  Elders  [Pre/ 
huterous]  of  the  church.  And  in  v.  28, 
in  his  exhortation  to  thefe  very  Elders, 
he  as  expreflly  calls  them  [  Epifcopous  ] 
Bifhops.  I  would  now  afk,  is  it  not 
quite  eafy  and  natural  to  fuppofe,  that 
Irenaeus  ufes  the  phrafe,  "  Bifhops  and 
Prefbyters,"  in  allufion  to  the  17th  and 
28th  verfe  of  the  juft  mentioned  xxth  of 
A£ls,  in  the  former  of  which  Paul  ufes 
the  word,  «  Preibyters  jM  and  in  the  latter, 
the  word,  "  Bifhops  F"  And  as  Paul 
mod  certainly  ufed  them  fynonimically  ; 
is  it  not  reafonableto  think,  that  Irenaeus 
ufed  them  in  the  like  fenfe  ?  Efpecially, 

as, 


4^6      I   R    E   N    M    U    S, 

as,  in  every  other  paffege  through-: 
out  his  writings,  inftead  of  connecting 
Bifhops  and  Prefbyters,  fo  as  that  it  might 
feem  as  if  hp  intended  to  make  a  diftinc- 
tion  between  them, he  has  ufedthe  words 
invariably  in  the  fynonimous  fenfe,  in- 
differently and  promifcuoufly  meaning 
by  Bifhops,  Prefbyters ;  and  by  Prcibyters, 
Bifhops.  This  is  fo  plain  a  cafe,  that 
it  might  be  thought  impertinent  to  fay 
any  thing  more  upon  it. 

It  may,  upon  the  whole,  be  fajd  with 
real  truth,  not  only  that  Irenaeus  is  a 
full  and  pofitive  witnefs  againft  the  epif- 
copal  caufe,  but  a  pofitive  and  full  one 
in  favor  of  our's.  He  fays  not  a  word 
in  evidence  of  thofe  powers  that  are 
made  essential  to  the  Episcopate  ; 
but  as  much  as  we  could  defne,  in  proof 
of  the  sameness  of  the  order,  or  of- 
pics:,  of  Bifhops  and  Prefbyters* 


VICTOR* 


VICTOR,POLYCRATES,THEO- 
PHILUS,  BACHYLLUS,  HE- 
RAGLITUS,  MAXIMUS,  AP- 
PION,  CANDIDUS,  SEXTUS, 
JUDAS,  ARABIANUS,  SERA- 
PION,RHODON,PANTjENUS, 


T  HAVE  followed  Du-pin  in  placing 
■*■  thefe  writers  between  Irenaeus,  and 
Clement  of  Alexandria.  They  all  flou- 
rifhed  about  the  fame  time,  or,  in  other 
words,  towards  the  latter  end  of  the  fe- 
cond  century.  A  few  fragments  of  fome 
of  their  works  have  been  preferved  -,  but, 
for  the  greater  part,  they  are  totally  loft. 
Vi6lor  wrote  fome  pieces  about  the"  time 
of  keeping  eafter."  Theophilus  of  Qe- 
faria,  with  fome  other  Bifhops,  joined  in 
writing  "  an  epiftle,"  as  a  council,  with 
orders  to  have  it  publifhed,  with  reference 
to  the  "  day  on  which  eafter  fhould  be 

obferved." 


428  VICTOR,  and  others, 

obferved."  Bachyllus  of  Corinth  wrote 
an  "  epiftle,"  in  the  name  of  the  Bifhop 
of  Achaia,  upon  the  fame  fubjeft.  He- 
raclitus  wrote  "  commentaries  upon  the 
Apoftle  Paul  ;"Maximus,  on  "  the  origi- 
nal of  evil,"  and  on  "  the  creation  of  mat- 
ter ;"  Appion,  and  Candidus,  "  commen- 
taries on  thehexameron  ;"  Sextus,  a  "dif- 
courfe  on  the  refurreflion  £  Judas,  a 
treatife  on  "  Daniel's  weeks ;"  Pantaenus, 
matter  of  the  fchool  at  Alexandria,  and 
a  famous  preacher  of  the  gofpel,"  com- 
mentaries on  the  bible  :"  but  thefe  are  all 
buried  in  the  ruins  of  time.  Of  the 
works  of  Arabianus,  and  feveral  other 
writers,  about  this  time,  whofe  names  are 
not  mentioned  by  Eufebius,  there  were 
no  fi^ns,  or  traces,  even  fo  far  back  as  his 
day.  Rhodon,  once  a  difciple  of  Tatian, 
wrote  many  books.  Two  only  are  men- 
tioned by  Eufebius,  one  againft  "  the  he- 
refy  of  Marcion  ;"the  other,  on  *  thehex- 
ameron," or  "  the  fix  days  work."  He 
has  given  us  a  quotation,  of  fome  length, 
from  the  firft  of  thefe  books  •  but  there 
is  nothing  in  it  relative  to  the  point  we 
are  upon. 

SERAPION. 


SERAPION.       429 

SERAPION.  "  It  is  very  probable, 
"  (fays  Eufebius,)  *  that  many  of  his 
"  epiflles"  are  in  the  hands  of  others  ; 
"  but  thofe  only  have  come  to  our  know- 
"  ledge,  which  he  wrote  unto  one"  Dom- 
"  nus,"  who  renounced  the  faith  in  time 
*'  of  perfecution,  and  fell  to  Jewifh  apof- 
"  tacyj  and  to  "  Ponticus,  and  Caricus," 
"  ecclefiaftical  perfons  ;  and  "  epiftles" 
"  alfo  to  other  men,  and  likewife  a 
"  book  concerning  the  gofpel  called  after 
"  Peter,"  which  he  wrote  to  confute  the 
"  falfhood  fpecified  therein."  A  frag- 
ment of  this  book  has  been  preferved  by 
Eufebius  ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  it  to 
our  prefent  purpofe.  In  his  "  epiftle  to 
Caricus  and  Ponticus,"  the  defign  of 
which  was  to  confute  the  Phrygian  he- 
refy,  he  has  thefe  words,  as  quoted  by  Eu- 
febius,-^ "  And  that  ye  may  know  alfo, 
"  that  the  operation  of  this  deceitful 
"  doctrine,  called  the  "  new  prophefy," 
"  is  condemned  as  execrable  of  all  the 
"  churches  in  Chriftendom,  I  have  fent 
"  unto  you  the  learned  writings  of  Claur 
u  dius  Apollinaris,  that  holy  Bifhop  of 
u  Hierapolis  in  Afia."  Et^febius  adds, 
I  "  In 

J  H<  E.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  12.     f  H.  E.  Lib.  v.  cap.  18, 


436       S  E  R  A  P  I  O  N. 

''  In  this  ••  epiftle,"  of  Serapion,  there 
*'  are  fubfcriptions  of  many  Bifhops,  of 
w  whom  one  fubfcribeth  thus,  "  I,  Au- 
w  relius  Cyrenius  Martyr,  wifh  you 
w  health."  Another  thus  ;  iElius  Pub- 
u  lius  Julius,  Bifhop  of  Debeltum,  a  city 
"  of  Thracia,  as  fure  as  the  Lord  liveth 
**  in  heaven,  when  as  holy  Zotas,  of  An- 
"  chia,  would  have  call  out  the  devil  which 
"  fpake  in  Prifcilla,  the  diflembling  hy- 
"  pocntes  would  not  permit  it."  And 
"  many  other  Bifhops  gave  the  famecen- 
"  fure,  and  fubfcribed  with  their  own 
"  hands  to  the  faid  epiftle." 

POLYCRATES.  In  his  "  epiftle  to 
Victor,  and  the  church  of  Rome,"  lie  fays, 
with  reference  to  the  day  on  which  eafter 
ought  to  be  obferved,  as  his  words  are  re- 
corded by  Eufebius,  *  •*  Philip,  one  of 
"  the  twelve  Apoftles  ;-— again,  John, 
94  who  lay  on  our  Lord's  breaft  ;--more- 
"  over,  Polycarpus  Bifhop  of  Smyrna  j— 
"  Thraceas,  an  Eumenian,  and  a  Bifhop;— 
what  fhall  I  fpeak  of  Sagaris,  both  a 
Bifhop  and  Martyr  ?  Alfo  of  bleffed 
Papirius,  and  Meiito  an  Eunuch,  who 
was  guided  in  all  that  he  did  by  the 

-  Holy 

*  H.  £.  lib.  v.  cap.  24. 


« 


POLYCRATES.  43* 

«'  Holy  Ghoft  ? — All  thefe  celebrated  the 
ir  feaft  of  eafter,  according  to  the  gofpelj 
*'  on  the  fourteenth  trio  on,  not  varying* 
"  but  ileadily  obferving  the  rule  of  faith*. 
*«  To  be  fliort,  and  I>  Polycrates,  the 
<e  meaneft  of  you  all,  do  retain  the  tra- 
s<  dition  of  my  fore  fathers,  which  alfo  I 
''  have  imitated.  There  were  feven  BU 
"  fhops  before  me,  and  I  am  the  eighth* 
se  who  have  always  celebrated  the  feaft 
"  of  eafter  on  that  day  in  which  the 
■'  people  removed  tfie  leven  from  among 
"  them.  I  therefore,  my  brethren,  who* 
•'  have  now  lived  threefcore  and  five  years 
<v  in  the  Lord,  have  Conferred  with  the: 
"  brethren  throughout  the  world,  and 
<(  have  read,  and  again  read,  the  holy^ 
a  fcriptures,  will  not  be  at  all  moved  at 
"  thofe  things'  which  are  made  to  terri- 
"  fy  us.— I  coufd  mention  the  BifhopS 
"  who  were  prefect,  whom  you  requefted: 
«<  me  to  atTemble,  whom  alfo  I  have  af-* 
cc  fembled  together,  t  whofe  names,  if  I 
^  fhouTd  write,  would  grow  unto  a  great 
"  number  :  tliey  have  vifitecT  me,  a  fitit* 
-'  pie  foul,  and  a  man  of  fmall  account* 
"  and  have  consented  unto  this  epiftle^ 
*  They  alfo  know,  that  I  bear  not  thefe 

"  gre^' 
Krkk 


432"    POL  t  CRATES. 

"  grey  hairs  in  vain, but  have  always  ha<f 
J"  my  converiation  in  Chrift  Jefus." 

f  need  only  obfeive,  with  reference  to 
thefe  tcftimonies,  that,  though  tftey  men- 
tion Eiihops,  they  fay  nothing  of  their 
powers  as  an  order  in  the  church  dis- 
tinct from,  and  superior  to,  Prefby- 
ters.  And  as  to  Polycrates,  it  cannot  be 
validly  argued,  that  his  essential  pow- 
ers, as  an  officer  in  the  kingdom  of  Chrifty 
were  fuch  as  could  not  be  juftly  exercifed 
by  Prefbyters,  becaufe  he  was  now  Bi- 
fhop  of  Ephefus,  and  there  had  been 
**  feven  before  him."  For  both  he,  and 
his  predeceflbrs  might  have  beep  precifely 
the  fame  ecclefiaftical  officers  in  point  of 
order,  however  they  might,  in  fome  re- 
ipe&s,  differ  in  regard  of  degree.  This 
point  has  been  largely  fpoken  to,  in  an- 
fwer  to  the  teftimonies  from  Irenasus, 
upon  the  head  of  fucceffion  in  fingle  per- 
fons  ;  to  which  the  reader  is  referred  for 
fetisfa&ion,  if  he  needs  it. 


CLEMENT. 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 


fits  char  after,  writings,  tejlimoniesfremthem^ 
•with   obfervations  and  remarks, 


TITUS 'Flafius  Clemens,  or  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  the  name 
by  which  he  is  more  commonly  diftin- 
guifhed,  was  probably  of  heathenifh  exr 
traft  ;  and  fome  lay,  a  native  of  Athens. 
Epiphanius  tells  us,  "  he  was  called 
by  fome  Clement  of  Alexandria  j  by 
others  Clement  of  Athens  ■"  and  iup- 
pofes  from  hence,  ••  that  Athens  was  the 
place  of  his  birth  ;  Alexandria,  of  his 
after  refidence,  and  conftant  employment 
It  is  altogether  uncertain,. when  he  hilt 
profeffed  himfelf  aChriftian,  and  by  what 
means  he  was  induced  to  dq  fo.  Heflou- 
rimed,  fays  Dr.  Lardener,  in  the  reign  of 
Severus,  and  his  fon  Antoninus  Cara- 
cella,  that  is,  between  192  and  217.  Du- 
p  pin, 


434  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria^ 

pin  fays,  he  reached  the  time  of  Helioga- 
bulus,  and  did  not  die  before  the  year  220. 

He  had  early  a  ftrongfchirft  after  know- 
ledge, and  by  diligent  ftudy,  under  the 
advantage  of  valuable  natural  endow- 
ments, efpeciaily  a  molt  tenacious  me- 
mory, and  the  beft  means  of  indoctrina- 
tion the  world  was  favoured  with  in  that 
day,  he  acquired  the  reputation  of  having 
attained  to  an  extraordinary  height  in  au 
forts  of  learning.  He  was  a  ftudent  un- 
der feveral  mailers.  Ashe  himfelf  tells 
•us,  in  his  firfl  book  of  ftromes,  he  had 
ft  %yrQ  in  Greece,  the  one  a  Caelo-Syrian, 
the  other  an  Egyptian  ;  two  more  in  the 
eaft,  one  an  Afiyrian,  the  other  of  Palef- 
tine  :  and  that  at  }aft  he  found  one  in 
Egypt,  who  was  far  more  excellent  than 
all  the  reft."  This  was  Pantsenus,  of 
whom  he  fpeaks  with  great  refpeft,  and 
in  hisinftitutions  expreisly  calls  " his  maf- 
ier."  The  names  of  the  firft  four  are  not 
^mentioned.  Earonius  thinks  the  Afiy- 
rian was  Bardefanes,  and  he  of  Paleftine 
Theophilus  of  Crefaria.  Valefius,  with 
greater  probability,  fuppofes  Tatian  to 
have  been  the  Afiyrian,  and  Thesdotus 
?he  Hebrew,  under  whofe  name  there  i§ 
a  "  fragment"  of  the  "  inftitutions"  at  the 
end  of  the  works  of  Clement.  But 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.   435 

Bur  though  he  fiudied  under  thefe  fe- 
veral  matters,  hedid  not  implicitly  fwallow 
their  dictates,  but  chofe,  as  it  was  fit  he 
fhould  do,  to  judge  for  himfelf.  He  ac- 
cordingly fays,  in  the  firft  book  of  his 
ilromata,  "  I  efpoufed  not  this,  or  that 
philofophy,  neither  the  ftoic,  nor  thepla- 
tonic,  nor  the  epicurean,  nor  that  of  Arif- 
totle  ;  but  whatever  any  of  thefe  fe£tshad 
faid  that  was  right  and  juft,  all  that,  being 
fcka.ed,  I  call  philofophy."  This  not* 
withftanding,  as  Dr.  Cave  obferves,  "  he 
came  neareft  to  the  ftoics,  as  appears 
from  his  difcouriing  by  way  of  paradoxes, 
and  his  afFe&ed  novelty  of  words,  two 
things  peculiar  to  the  men  of  that  way. 
And  I  doubt  not  but  he  was  peculiarly 
difpofed  towards  this  fe£t  by  the  inftruc- 
tions  of  his  mafter  Pantaenus,  fo  great 
and  profeffed  an  admirer  of  the '  ftoical 
philofophy/'  This  Pantaenus  was  maf- 
ter of  the  fchool  or  academy  at  Alexan- 
dria, for  the  inftru&ion  of  catechumens., 
that  is,  new  converts  from  heathenifm, 
or  the  children  of  believers  grown  up  to 
a  capacity  of  indoctrination,  efpecially 
fuch  of  them  as  were  intended  for  the 
fervice  of  the  church  of  Chrift.  The 
language  and  liberal  arts,  it  is  faid,  were 
taught  here,  as  well  as  the  grounds  and 

principles 


436  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

principle5  of  theChri/Uan  religion.  Han- 
mer  fays,  "Pantaenus  read  in  Alexandria 
divinity  and  philofophy,  from  whence  it 
15  thought  the  orders  of  instituting  uni- 
verfities  firfl:  began  in  Chriftendom." 
Clement,  it  is  probable,  taught  in  this  ca- 
techetical fchool  with  Pantsenus,  and  fup- 
plied  his  place  white  gone  to  preach  the 
gofpel  in  India.  It  is  certain,  he  fuc- 
ceeded  him  upon  his  death,  in  this  office  ; 
and  he  continued  in  it  a  long  time,  to  the 
end  of  his  life  ;  ever  conducing  with  ho- 
nour to  himfelf,  and  great  advantage  to, 
thofe  who  attended  on  his  inftru&ions. 
Some  of  the  moft  eminent  men,  in  that 
age,  were  educated  under  his  care  >  fuch 
as  Origen,  Alexander,  afterwards  Bifhop 
of  jerulalem,  and  many  others.  Not* 
great  way  from  the  beginning  of  Severus's 
reign,  he  fuftained  the  office  of  a  Prefby- 
ter  in  the  church  of  Alexandria,  befides 
this  of  a  catechift  there  ;  for  in  this  cha- 
rafter  Euiebius  fpeaks  of  him  in  the  year 
i  or.  And  being  a  man  of  great  piety,  as 
well  as  learning,  and  eminently  gctflpqs 
to  promote  the  honor  of  God,  and  the 
advancement  of  religion,  he  did  much 
lervice  by  his  preaching,  not  only  m 
Alexandria,  but  in  jerufalem,  and  An- 
tiocfc,  to  which  places  he  cccafionally 


CLfiMENT  of  Alexandria.  437 

went,  confirming  many  in  the  faith,  and 
recovering  others  who  had  been  feduced 
oy  falfe  teachers.  Eufebius  *  brings  in 
Alexander,  at  that  lime  Bifhop  of  Jeru- 
falem,  thus  fpeaking  of  him,  in  his  epif- 
tle  to  the  church  at  Antioch,  "  This  let- 
ter] fend  you  by  Ciement,the  bkfTedPref- 
byter,  a  man  virtuous  and  approved, 
whom  ye  both  know,  and  fliall  more 
fully  know  ;  who,  coming  hither  by  the 
good  providence  of  God,  hath  eftabliftied, 
and  increafed,  the  church  of  the  Lord/' 

tlE  was  greatly  irfeful  by  his  pen,  as 
^ell  as  catechetical  inftruttions,and  pub- 
lic preaching.  His  writings  are  nume- 
rous y  though  moftof  thetn  are  loft.  A 
few  only  have  reached  the  prefent  day. 

His  loft  writings,  as  we  have  the  ac- 
count of  them,  from  Eufebius,  Jerom, 
and  others,  are  thefe. 

Lost  writings. 

A  TRACT  concerning  "  eafter."  A 
difcourfe  concerning  "  fafting."  Ano- 
ther, of  ««  flander."  An  "  exhortation  to 
patience,"  defigned  for  the  ufe  gf  fuch  as 

were 

T.  £hE*  lib,  vi»  cap,  ir. 


438  CLEMENT  of  Al<isndri:r.> 

were  newly  baptifed.  An  "  ecclefiafticai 
canon/' or  a  difcourfe  "  againft  jewdaif- 
ing."  A  difcourfe  "  of  the  refurre&ion/' 
Another,  "  of  continence/*  Another, 
"  of  marriage."  Thefe  three  he  himfelf 
mentions  in  his  ftromata  °y  and  particu- 
larly fpeaks  of  the  laft,  in  his  paedago- 
gus,  lib.  iii.  cap.  8.  where  he  gives  a  lum- 
inary of  the  contents  of  it.  Trithemius  * 
fays,  he  wrote  "  many  epiC^es."  Eufe- 
bius  informs  us,  -f-  that  he  "  promifed  a 
commentary  upon  Genefis."  Whether 
he  ever  wrote  it,  is  not  now  known.  Be- 
fides  all  thefe,  Eufebius  often  mentions, 
and  fometimes  quotes,  a  volume,  called 
"  hypotypofes,"  or  "  eight  books  of  in^ 
ftitutions."  In  this  work,  according  to 
Photius,  "  He  goes  over  the  main  body  of 
the  fcriptures  in  a  brief  commentary,  or 
expofition ;  not  omitting  fome  books  that 
were  generally  reje&ed  as  apocrypha]/' 
This  learned"  critic  obferves  further,  in 
common  with  others,  that,  in  this  per- 
formance, there  are  "fome  things  very  er- 
ronious  and  fabulous.  Du-pin  fuppofes 
this  work  muft  needs  have  been  compofed 
by  St.  Clement  before  he  was  thoroughly 
inftructed  in  the  Chriilian  religion,  and 
had  quitted  the  opinions  of  Plato  ;    or 

while 

*  De  Scriptoribus,        f  H.  K.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  a 3, 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  439 

tvhile  he  was  half  a  Platonift,  and  half  a 
Chriftian.  Dr.  Cave  rather  falls  in  with 
the  opinion  of  Photius,  which  was,  "  that 
"  probably  thefe  things  were  inferted 
*<  by  another  hand  5  as  Ruffinus  ex- 
"  preflly  allures  us,  that  herefies  had  cor- 
"  rupted  Clement  his  writings.  Certain- 
'<  ly,  fays  he,  ha  i  thefe  books  been  infected 
¥  with  thele  prophane  and  poifonous  dog- 
i(  mata  inEufebius's  time,  he  would  have 
**  given us;atleaft,fomeobfcureintimation$ 
44  of  it.  And  confiderable  it  is,  that  thefe 
"  things  are  not  countenanced  by  his 
44  other  books  ;  nay,  many  of  them  are 
44  plainly  contradi&ed  by  them." 

Spurious^ 

Dr.  Cave  mentions  th£  following 
pieces  as  attributed  to  this  Clement,  bat 
foils  them  fuppofttitious.  "Short  com- 
mentaries on  the  firft  canonical  epiftle  of 
Peter,  the  epiftle  of  Jude,  and  the  three 
epiftles  of  John  the  Apoitle." 

Extant  genuine  writings, 

f  HfE  remaining,  and  commonly  re- 
ceived, works  of  Clement,  beftdes  a  fmall 
jraft,   more    lately    publiihed,   entitled,, 
L  1 1  "  what 


440  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

<<  what  rich  man  fhall  be  faved  ?"  arc 
thefe  three.  His  u  exhortation  to  the 
Gentiles,"  in  one  book.  His  "  peda- 
gogue," or  fchool-mafter,  in  three  books. 
His  "  ftromes,"  in  eight  books  ;  fo  called, 
becaufe  they  contain  a  collection  of  mat- 
ter, fo  put  together  as  to  make  a  variety 
net  unlike  that  inTurkey-worked-carpets. 
The  word,  ftromaties,  fays  Erafmus,  is 
taken  from  pictured  carpets,  or  tapeftry." 
It  is  ufed  here,  fays  Du-pin,  "  for  that 
mixture  we  fee  in  tapeftry,  and  imports  as 
much  as  mifcellaneous  commentaries,  or 
difcourfes."  Clement  himfelf  gives  us 
this  idea  of  his  work  of  ftromes.  "  Thefe 
"books,  fays  he,  are  ftored  with  varieties, 
as  their  name  imports.  We  pafs  on 
continually  from  one  thing  to  another." 
He  alfo  calls  then),  "  a  variegated  con- 
texture of  difcourfes  >"  which  he  com- 
pares "  to  a  meadow,  a  traft  of  land,  or 
a  garden,  wherein  one  may  find  all  forts 
of  herbs,  flowers,  and  fruits,  of  which  we 
may  gather  as  we  pleafe."  And  fuch, 
in  truth,  are  thefe  books  called,  ftromata. 
They  are  as  a  mixed  compofition,  and 
contain  as  great  a  variety  of  all  forts  of 
learning  as  could  well  be  put  together. 

In  his  "  exhortation  to  the  Gentiles," 
he  ftrongly  reprefents,  and  largely  expofes, 

the 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  441 

the  folly,  and  impiety,of  the  Pagan-idola- 
try ;  and  then,  with  great  cogency,  urges 
to  the  profeflion  of  Chriftianity,  and  the 
worihip  of  the  one  only  livingand  true  God. 

In  his  "  paedagogue,"  he  tutors  and  in- 
ftrufts  the  newly  initiated  converts  to 
Chriftianity  ;  prescribing  many  wifely- 
adapted  rules  to  promote  their  increafe  in 
grace,  until  they  attain  to  the  "  fullnefs. 
of  the  flat  are  of  men  in  Chad." 

In    his   "    ftromata,"    he    adminiflers 
"  ftrong    meat''  to   them   who    are    of 
"  full  age,"  and  have  "  their  fenfes  exer- 
cifed  to  difcern  both  good  and  evil ;"   en- 
deavouring to  lead  this   kind  of  perfons 
into  a  more  clofe  and  intimate  acquaint- 
ance with  the  myfteries  of  religion.     He 
tells  us  himfelf,  that  he  purpofely  wrote 
thefe  books,  fo  as  that  thefe  myfteries 
might  not  be  clearly  difcovered  to  thofe 
who  were  not  as  yet  initiated  ;    while 
others,  who  were,  might  underftand  them 
to  their  advantage.     "  Our  defign,  (fays 
he)  was,  (as  Du~pin  translates   him)  to 
conceal,  and,  if  I  may  fo  fay,  to  embroil 
things,   that  fo  none  but  the  intelligent, 
and  thofe  who  will  take  pains  to  inform 
themfelves,  may  be  able  to  comprehend, 

them." 


442  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

them."  In  agreement  with  this  account, 
it  is  the  truth  of  facl,that  he  often  writes 
in  a  manner  fo  obfcure,  as  not  to  be  eafily 
underftood.  He  obferves  frequently  no 
order  in  thefe  books.  They  are  rather  a 
collection  of  incoherent  varieties,  than 
an  exadt  methodical  compofure. 

Perhaps,  no  one  of  the  Fathers  has 
teen  more  highly  celebrated  than  this 
Clement,  either  by  ancient,  or  more  mo- 
dern writers,  Alexander,  Bifhop  of  Je- 
rulalem,  and  contemporary  with  him,  in 
his  ".  epiftle  to  Qrigen,"  calls  him  the 
*'  facred  Clement  ;"  and  fays,  "  he  was 
This  mailer,  and  had  been  profitable  to 
him."  Eufebius,  in  his  cronicle,  makes 
mention  of  him  as  "  an  excellent  mafter 
of  the  Chriftian  philofophy,"  and  one 
€<  eminent  for  his  writings."  He  eliewhere 
more  than  once  calls  him  U  the  admira- 
ble Clement. "  Jerom,  in  his  catalogue  of 
illuftrious  men,  fays  of  his  works,  "  they 
are  full  of  erudition,  borrowed  from  the 
treafuresofthe  divine  fcripture,  and  (ecu- 
hr  literature  :"  and,  in  his  epiftle  to  Mag- 
nus, declares  it  as  his  opinion,  that  "Cle- 
ment was  the  moft  learned  of  all  men/' 
And,  having  mentioned  the  chief  of  his 
works,  adds, "  what  is  there  in  them  un- 
learned ? 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria,  443 

learned  ?  What,  not  taken  out  of  the  very 
depths  of  philofophy  ?"  He  is  honored, 
by  more  modern  writers,  with  the  titles 
of  a  "  mod  excellent,  moft  learned,  moft 
eloquent  man  ;"  one  who  "  exceeded  all 
others  in  incredible  knowledge."  The 
learned  Daille  fays  of  him,  "  What  can 
p  you  name  more  mixed,  and  fuller  of 
"  variety  than  his  ftromata,  as  he  calls 
"  them,  and  his  other  works  ?  which  are 
€t  throughout  interlaced  with  hiftorical 
"  allufions,  opinions,  fentences,  and  pro- 
f*  verbs,  out  of  all  forts  of  writers,  both 
"  facred  and  prophane  ;  heightened  here 
"  with  rich  lightfome  colors,  then  fhaded 
"  with  darknefs,  in  fuch  fort  as  that  it  is 
"  a  vain  thing  for  an  ignorant  perfon  to 
"  hope  ever  to  reach  his  meaning."  The 
greareft  encomium  of  him  we  meet  with 
in  Gentianus  Heroetius,  *  who,  among 
others,  tranflated  his  works  into  Latin  j 
but  this  is  too  long  to  be  inferted  here. 

The  higheft  (trains  in  which  Clement 
has  been  commended,  are  not,  as  I  imagine, 
too  great,as  they  refpeft  his  learning.  This, 
as  Dr.  Lardner's  exprefiion  is,  was  "  prodi- 
"  gious."  And  it  is  really  wonderful,  as  the 
invention  of  the  art  of  printing  is  much  be- 
low 

f  In  epif.  ante  oper.  Clem* 


444  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

low  his  day,and  it  was  therefcrenn  his  power 
to  read   only  manufcript    copies  of  the 
works  of  otheis,  how  he  could  find  ways 
to  come  at  the  fight  of  fuch  a  multitude 
of  them,  as  he  ieems  to  have  been  perfect- 
ly acquainted  with.      There  was  fcarce  a 
pagan  philoibpher,    poet,    or    hiftorian, 
however  near  or  diflant  from  the  age  in 
which    he   lived,    but  he   made  himfelf 
mafter  of  their  works.  And  the  fame  may 
be  faid  of  all  Chriftian  writers,  whether 
they  were  orthodox  or  heretical  ;    whe- 
ther they  flouriflied  in    the  apoftolic,  or 
fucceeding  age,   or   about    the   time  in 
which  he  lived.    Confidering  his  conftant 
employment  as  a  catechetical  inftrudtor, 
and  his  attending  together  herewith,  for 
fome  years,  the  work  of^a  Prefbyter  of  the 
church  at  Alexandria,  *it  is  amazing  to 
think,  after  he  had  procured  fuch  an  im- 
menfe  vaiietyof  manufcripts,how  hecould 
find  time  to   read  them  ;  much    more, 
how  he  could  write  fuch   a  number  of 
books,  in  which  he  could  make  fo    eafy 
and  ready  a  ufe  of  them  !  He  muft  have 
been  a  miracle  of  diligence,  not   loofing 
one  inch  of  his  time.     But  though  I  am 
aflonifhed  at  his  learning,  I  cannot  think 
he  was  eminently  great  in  regard  of  judg- 
ment.    It  will  not  be  difowned,  by  any 

who 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  445 

who  have  read  his  works,  that  his  reafon- 
ing  too  often  will,  not  bear  examination  ; 
which  cannot  eafily  be  accounted  for,  if 
he  had  been  as  judicious  as  he  was  learned. 
And  if  I  fhould  add, that  his  religious  fen- 
timents,  in  fome  points,  were  not  agreea- 
ble to  truth,  it  would  not  be  difputed.— 
But  his  abundant  labors,  in  the  caufe  of 
God,  while  living,  and  the  ufefulnefs  of  his 
writings,  in  many  refpe&s,  fince  his  death, 
are  more  than  enough  to  weigh  down  the 
miftakes  that  may  have  dropped  from 
his  pen. 

Testimonies  from  Clement  of  Alex- 
andria. 

P^dog.  lib.  i.  p.  120.  edit.  pott.  We 
have  here  the  following  incidental  paf- 
fage,  "  If  we,  who  have  rule  [proegou- 
menoi  ton  ekklefion~\  over  the  churches 
are  Shepherds,  or  Paftors  [foimenes]  after 
the  image  of  the  good  Shepherd. "— 

lb.  lib.  iii.  p.  291.  In  proof  the  impiety 
of  women's  wearing  foreign  hair,  a- 
mong  other  arguments,  he  ufes  this,  "  On 
whom  or  what  [tint]  will  the  Preibyter 
[Prejbuteros]  impofe  his  hand  ?  To  whom, 
or  what,  will  he  give  his  blefiing  ?   not 

to 


446  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria, 

to  the  woman,  who  is  adorned,  but  to 
ftrange  locks  of  hair,  and  through  them 
to  another's  head." 

lb.  lib*  lb.  p.  309.  Having  mentioned 
a  variety  of  fcripture precepts,  well  adapt- 
ed to  difcountenance  iniquity,  he  goes  on* 
and  fays,  "  Very  many  other  commands, 
appertaining  to  feledl  perfons,  are  written 
in  the  facred  books*  fome  to  Prefbyters 
[PreJbuterois{\  fome  to  Bifhops  [Epi/kopois ;] 
lbme  to  Deacons  [Diakonois ;]  and  fome 
to  widows." 

Strom,  lib.  iii.  p.  546.  In  difcourfing 
upon  thedodtrine  of  continence  and  mar- 
riage, he  occafionally  brings  in  thefe 
words,  "  Again,  fays  he,  [the  Apoftle 
Paul]  thofe  are  to  be  appointed  Bifhops 
[Eprjfkopous  dei  kathiflafthai,]  who,  from 
ruling  their  own  houie,  are  exercifed  to 
theknowledgeofrulingthe  whole  church*/' 

Ib.  lib.  ib.  p.  552.  Having  cited  that 
apoftolic  diredion,  1.  Tim,  v.  14,  15,  «  I 
will  that  the  younger  women  marry,  bear 
children,  guide  the  houfe,  give  none  oc- 
cafion  to  the  adverfary  to  fpeak  reproach- 
fully," he  adds,  "  but  he  muft  be  the 
hufband  of  one  wife  onlv,  whether  he  be 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.   447 

a  Preibyter  [Pre/by teros,]  or  Deacon  [Dw- 
konos]  or  Layman,  if  he  would  ufe  matri- 
mony without    reprehenfion." 

In.  lib.  ib.  p.  561.  Having  mentioned 
a  number  of  paffages,  iri  one  or  another  of 
Paul's  epiftles,  in  vindication  of  marriage, 
he  goes  on,  "  What  can  they  fay  to  thefe 
things,  who  inveigh  againfl:  marriage  P* 
and  adds  this confideration  further,  "fince 
he  [this  iame  Apoftle]  enjoins,  that  the 
Bifhop[E/>^0/w]tobe  fet  over  the  church 
\tes  ekklejias  aphegeifthai]  be  ofie  who  rules 
his  own  houfe  well." 

Ib.  lib.  vi.  p.  793.  "  He  therefore  who 
hasmoderatedhisaft'efrionsinthefirftplace, 
and  by  carefully  exercifinghimfelf  to  fubdue 
his   paffions,  hath  obtained  the  maftery 
of  them,  and  hath  grown  up  to  the  bene- 
ficence   of  Gnoftic  perfection,  advances? 
indeed  from  thence  to  an  equal  rank  with 
the   Angels.      And   now    being   full   of 
light,   and    fhining  like  the  fun  in  afts  of 
goodnefs,hehaftens,  by  a  righteous  know- 
ledge,  through  the  love  of  God,  to  the 
holy  manfiort,  in  like  manner  as  theApof- 
tles  :  not  that  they  became  Apoftles  from 
any  excelling  peculiarity  of  their  nature, 
fince  Judas  was  chofen  with  them,  buc 
M  m  m  iuch 


44§  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

fuch  became  Apoftles,  being  chofen  by 
him  who  for  efees  even  the  ends.  He  there- 
fore who  was  not  elected  together  with 
them,  Matthias,  when  hehadfhewed  him- 
self worthy  to  bean  Apoftle,  was  put  in  the 
place  of  Judas.  It  is  now  therefore  al- 
lowable for  thofe  alfo  who  have  exercifed 
themfelves  in  the  divine  commandments, 
and  have  perfectly  and  gnoftically  lived  ac- 
cording to  the  gofpel,  to  be  afcribed  into 
the  number  of  the  Apoftles.  This  man 
is  in  reality  a  Prcfbyter  [Prejhyteros,']  and 
a  true  Deacon  [Diakonos]  of  the  purpofs 
of  God,  if  he  does,  and  teaches,  the  things 
of  the  Lord  :  not  ordained  of  men,  nor 
feecaufe  a  Prefbyter  [P re/by teros]  there- 
fore efteemed  a  righteous  man  ;  but  be- 
caufea  righteous  man, therefore  now  reck- 
oned in  thePrefbytery  [en  Prejbyterio  kata- 
legomenos  :]  and  though  here  upon  earth  he 
hath  not  been  honored  with  the  chief 
feat  [protokathedriai]  yet  he  (hall  ietdown 
among  the  four  and  twenty  thrones,  judg- 
ing the  people,  as  John  fays  in  the  Reve-' 
lation.  For  the  fcheme  of  falvation  is, 
in  reality,  one,  reaching  from  the  begin  - 
ing  of  the  world  down  to  us,  though 
fuppofed  to  be  different  in  its  beftowment, 
according  to  different  generations  and 
times.    For  it  is  fit  and  congruous,  that 

thera 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  449 

there  fliould  be  one  immutable  beftow- 
ment  of  falvation,  by  one  God,  through 
one  Lord,  in  diverfe  manners  profitable  - 
on  account  whereof  the  middle-partition 
is  taken  away,  which  divided  the  Greek 
from  the  jew,  that  they  might  be  a  pecu- 
liar people,  and  fo  both  come  into  unity 
of  faith  :  and  from  both  there  is  one  elec- 
tion ;  and  of  the  chofen,  fome,  he  fays, 
are  more  chofen.  Thefe  are  the  twenty- 
four,  who  are  Judges  and  Rulers,  from 
among  the  Jews  and  Greeks  equally,  the 
grace  being  doubled,  who,  for  their  perfect 
knowledge,  have  been  plucked,  like  a  gar- 
land of  fweet  flowers,  from  the  church  it- 
felf,  and  honored  with  mod  diftinguifh- 
ed  glory.  Now  in  the  church  here, 
the  progreffions  [prokopai,  proceffions, 
advancements,]  of  Bifhops,  Prefbyters, 
Deacons,  [epijkopon,  Prejhyteron,  Dia- 
konon]  I  take  to  be  imitations  of  the  evan- 
gelical g»ory,  and  of  that  difpenfation, 
which,  the  fcriptures  tell  us,  they  look 
for,  who,  following  the  fteps  of  theApof- 
tles,  have  lived  according  to  the  gofpel  in 
the  perfection  of  righteoufnefs.  Thefc 
men,  the  Apoftle  writes,  being  taken  up 
into  the  clouds,  fhall  firjft  minifter  as 
Deacons  [Diakonefein,]  then  be  admitted 
to  a  rank  in  thePrefbytery  [to  Prefoyterio] 

according 


45o  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

according  to  the  progreffion  in  glory, 
(for  one  glory  difreretb  from  another)  un- 
til they  grow  up  to  a  perfect  man," 

In.  lib,  vii.  p.  830.  "  Of  that  fervice  of 
God  about  which  men  ape  converiant, 
one  is  \bcltictik/\  that  which  makes  them 
better  ;  the  other  [i/peretike]  that  which 
is  miniirerial.  Medicine  make  the  body 
\beUiCiiker{\  better  ;  philpfophy  the  foul  : 
but  the  fervice  which  is  due  to  parents 
from  their  children,  and  to  Rulers  from 
thofe  who  are  fubjecl:  to  them,  is  [upere- 
tirJ]  minifrerial.  In  like  manner,  in  the 
church, the Prefoyters  [czPre/byferci]  main- 
tain \tmbdtictiken  cikona]  the  form  of  that 
kind  which  makes  men  better;  and  the 
Deacons,  [ten  beltictikcn,  oi ' dial:oriot\  that 
which  is  ministerial.  In  both  these 
ministries,  the  Angfls,  ierve  God  in. 
the  difpenfation  of  earthly  things."--- 

In  lib."quis  dives  falvandusfit"?  p.  9-9, 
"  Hear  a  fable,  and  yet  not  a  fable,  but 
a  true  itory,  reported  of  John  the  ApoP 
tie,  delivered  to  us,  and  kept  in  memory. 
After  the  death  of  the  tyrant,  when  he 
(John)  had  returned  to  Ephefus,  out  of 
the  ifle  of  Patmos,  being  defired,  he  went 
to  the  neighbouring  nations,   where  he 

appointed 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  451 

appointed  Bifhops  [epi/kopois  kataJicfony'\ 
where  he  fet  in  order  whole  cities,  and 
where  he  chofe  by  lot,  unto  the  ecclefi- 
aflical  function,  of  thofe  who  had  been 
pointed  out  by  the  fpirjt  as  by  name. 
When  he  was  come  to  a  certain  city,  not 
far  diftant,  the  name  of  which  fome  men- 
tion,and,  among  other  things,had  refrefhed 
the  brethren  ;  beholding  a  young  man  of 
a  portly  body,  a  gracious  countenance, 
and  fervent  mind,  he  looked  upon  the 
Bifhop  who  was  fet  over  all  [epi  paji  to 
katheftoti  epijkopo,']  and  faid,  I  commit  this 
young  man  to  thy  cuftody,with  the  deep- 
eft  intention  of  mind,  in  prefence  of  the 
church,  and  Chrift  bearing  me  witnefs. 
When  he  had  received  the  charge,  and 
promifedthe  performance  of  all  things  re^ 
lative.to  it,  John  again  urged,  and  made 
proteftation  of  the  fame  thing.  He  af- 
terwards returned  to  Ephefus.  And  the 
Prefbyter  [  0  de  Prefbuteros\  taking  the 
young  man,brought  him  to  his  ownhoufe, 
nourifhed,  comforted,  and  cherifhedhim; 
aqd  at  length  baptifed  him.,,— As  this  ro- 
mance* (for  to  I  take  the  whole  flory  to  be) 

goes 

*  If  Clement  had  either  fupprefsed  this  ftory,  or  related  it  as 
a  fabulous  one,  not  worthy  of  credit,  he  would,  perhaps, 
have  difcovered  more  judgment.  This,  I  am  apt  to  think, 
will  be  the  opinion  of  thofe,  who  may  be  at  the  pains  to 

read 


452  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

goes  on,  the  young  man  proved  very  dif- 
folute.  Upon  which  the  Bifhop  is  re- 
prefented  as  fending  for  the  Apoftle  John, 
who,  when  he  was  come,  faid  to  him, 
•'  O  Bifhop  !  reftore  to  us  the  charge, 
which  I,  and  thy  Savior,  committed  to 
thee,  the   church  over   which  thou   art 

fet    bearing    witnefs. Then    the    old 

man  [o  Pre/bytes]  groaning  deeply,  and 
with  tearsinhiseyes,faid,heis  dead;" that 
is,  to  God,"  as  it  is  afterwards  explained. 

Retmarks   and   Observations  on  the 
foregoing  testimonies. 

IT  is  obvious,  upon  the  flighted  view 
of  the  above  offered  teftimonies,  that  Cle- 
ment, no  mors  than  the  writers  before 
him,  can,  with  the  leaft  fhadow  of  rea- 
fon,  be  produced  as  witneffing  to  the 
facts  that  are  the  grand  fubjeft  under 
confideration.  He  fays  not  a  word,  from  < 
whence  it  can  be  fo  much  as  collected  by 
remote  confequence,  that  he  thought  Bi- 
fhops  had  an  exclusive  right  to  con- 
fer 

read  it  over.  Eufebius,  it  is  true,  has  given  the  whole  of 
it  a  place  in  his  "  ecclefiaftical  hiftory  ;"  and  inferts  it  as 
a  true  report.  But  this  is  no  infallible  argument  that  it  is 
fo.  For  there  are,  in  tkis  work  of  his,  many  inftances, 
befides  this,  wherein  he  difcovers  a  mind  too  fond  of 
ftrange  ftorits, 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  453 

fer  holy  orders  ;  nor  has  he  anywhere 
hinted,  that  it  was  ever  the  prac- 
tice, in  his  day,  or  at  any  other  time,  for 
Bifhops,  as  a  distinct  order  of  gofpel 
officers,to  perform  the  work  of  ordina- 
tion. The  fame  may  be  faid  of  their  ex- 
clufive  right  to  govern  the  church. 
It  is  obfervable,  in  paedag,  p.  120,  though 
a  Presbyter  of  the  church  of  Alexan- 
dria, he  includes  himfelf  in  the  number 
of  thofe  proegoumenoiyor  chief  leaders,  who 
are  efteemed  Shepherds.  "  We,  fays  he, 
who  have  rule  in  the  churches,  ton  ekkk- 
Jion  proegoumenoi"  And  as  to  confir- 
mation, he  no  where  mentions  it,  unlefs 
u  the  impofition  of  the  hand,"paedog.  p. 
291,  may  be  fuppofed  to  refer  to  this  cuf- 
tom.  If  this  fhould  be  the  truth,  it  is  the 
firft  hint  we  have,  in  all  primititive  an- 
tiquity, of  fuch  a  practice  in  the  church. 
But  then,  it  deferves  particular  notice, 
this  teftimony  can  be  of  no  fervice  to  the 
cpifcopal  claim;  for,  not  the  Bifhop,  but 
the  Presbyter,  is  reprefented  as  "  lay- 
ing on  his  hand."  It  could  not  therefore 
•  be,  according  to  Clement,  the  appropriate 
work  of  a  Bilhop,  a  peculium  of  his  of- 
fice as  fuch. 

It  is  acknowledged,  Clement  once  ufes 
that  mode  of  dittion,"  Bifhops,  Prefbyters, 

Deacons  ? 


454  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria, 

Deacons  $"  and  once  more  thus  varied, 
u  Prefbyters,  Bifhops,  Deacons  :"  and  he 
is  the  fir  ft  writer,  Ignatius  only  excepted, 
if  he  is  fuppofed  to  be  the  writer  of  the 
epiftles  afciibed  to  him,  that  ever  ufed 
this  manner  of  (peaking.  But  his  thus 
writing  is  an  infufficicnt  ground  on  which 
to  reprefent  him  asawitnefs,  that  Bifhops 
were,  in  his  day,  an  order  of  officers  in 
the  church  diftindi  from,  and  fuperior  to, 
that  of  Preihyte'rs.  The  term,  Bifhop, 
may  properly  be  ufed  as  a  diftinguifhing 
name,  though  it  fhould  import  no  eflen- 
tial  fuperiority  of  office  between  him  and 
a  Prefbyter.  Arch-Bifhop  is  an  appella- 
tion that  diftinguifhes  theperfonto  whom 
it  is  applied  from  one  that  is  aBifhop  only, 
and  is  ever  ufed  to  this  purpofe;  andyer, 
Arch-Bifhop  and  Bifliop  are  one  and  the 
fame  order  of  officers  in  the  church,  Epif- 
eopalians  themfelves  being  judges.  So  the 
name,  Re£tor,  points  out  a  difference  be- 
tween the  peifons  called  by  this  name, 
and  thofe  that  are  ealled  Curates  •,  and 
yet,  they  both  partake  of  the  fame  effen- 
tial  powers  of  preaching,  baptifing,  and 
adminiftring  the  Lord's  iupper.  It  might, 
about  this  time,  begin  to  be  a  cuftom,  not 
to  have  a  Praefcs,  or  Head-Prefbyter  in 
the  church,  but  to   diftinguifh   him  by 

appropriating 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  45g 

appropriating  to  him  the  name  of  Bifhop. 
And  this  might  be  the  only  reafon  of 
Clement's  fpeaking  in  that  mode,  "  Bi- 
fliops, Prefbyters,  Deacons."  Moft  cer- 
tainly, it  could  not  be,  becaufe  he  thought 
there  were  three  diftia£t  orders  in  the 
church*  and  that  Bifliops  were,  as  Chrifts 
officers,  veiled  with  eflential  powers  fu- 
perior  to  Prefbyters,  as  Prefbyters  are  with 
powers  effentially  fuperior  to  Deacons  * 
and  for  the  following  confiderations. 

I.  In  paedag.  lib.  iii.  p.  309,  his  enti* 
meration  runs  thus,  "  Prefbyters, Bifliops, 
Deacons  "  which  cannot  eafily  be  ac- 
counted for,  if  he  had  fuppofed  Bifliops 
to  have  been  an  order  in  the  church  fuperi* 
or  to  that  of  Prefbyters,  as  Prefbyters  are  to 
that  of  Deacons.  He  no  where,in  fpeaking 
of  Prefbyters  and  Deacons,  places  Dea- 
cons before  Prefbyters  -,  but,  as  Prefbyters 
are  a  fuperior  order  of  officers,  he  always 
mentions  them  firft.  And  there  is  no 
imaginable  reafon  to  think,  but  he  would 
have  done  the  fame  by  Bifliops,  if,  in  his 
apprehenfion,  they  had  been  officers  in 
the  church  fuperior  in  their  order  toPref* 
byters.  It  is  worthy  of  obfervation,  Ignati- 
us does  not  give  us  the  enumeration  in  this 
form;  but  places  Bifliops  before  Prefbyters. 
,V.  Nnn  And 


456  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria, 

And  it  is  queftionable>whether  an  inftance 
can  be  produced,  alter  Bifhops  were  look- 
ed upon  a3  officers  in  the  church  of  a  fu- 
perior  order  to  Prefbyters,  ftom  any  wri- 
ter, who  favored  this  opinion,  wherein 
he  places  Prefbyters  before  Bifhops  in 
an  enumeration  of  church  officeis.  But 
this  I  barely  mention  as  not  unworthy  of 
notice. 

II.  It  is  a  confederation  of  more  weight 
that  in  his  book  "quis  dives  falvandusfit  ?" 
the  church  officer  he  fpeaks  of  under  the 
name  of  Bishop,  he  likewife  calls  Pres- 
byter. His  words  are,  "  He  [the  Apof- 
tlejohn]  looked  upon  the  Bishop,  who 
had  been  fet  over  the  whole  church,  and 
faid,  I  commit  this  young  man  to  thy 
care."  It  follows  a  few  lines  after,  "  and 
the  Presbyter,  [o  Prejbyter  ]  taking 
the  young  Man,  brought  him  home."-— 
It  is  not  in  any  degree  probable,  if,  by  the 
word,  Bifhop,  Clement  meant  an  officer 
in  the  church  of  a  fuperior  order  to  that 
of  Prefbyters,  he  would  have  indifferently 
ufed  the  terms,  Bifhop  and  Prefbyter,  to 
point  him  out.  Had  the  word,  Bifhop, 
been  with  him  the  known  certainly  ap- 
propriated term  to  diftinguifh  the  firfl 
or  higheft  of  three  orders  of  officers  in  the 

churchy 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  457 

church,  there  would  be  an  impropriety, 
not  to  fay  abfurdity,  in  his  calling  that  of- 
ficeraPRESBYTER,  whowasaBifljop:  nor 
ought  it  to  be  fuppofed,  that  he  would 
have  been  guilty  of  fo  grofs  a  reflection 
on  the  Bifhop  of  a  church, 

It  isfaid,  in  anfwer,  this  Bifhop,  who  is 
pointed  out  by  the  term  Prefbyter  [Pref- 
byteroty]  in  the  above  cited  place,  is  after- 
wards, in  this  very  ftory,  fpokenof  in  that 
ftile,  0  Pre/bytesy  "  the  old  man/'     Upou 
which  the  plea  is,  that  he  might  be  called 
Pre/by 'Zeros,  not  on  account  of  his  being  a 
Prefbyter,    but  an  elderly  perfon.     It  is 
confefled  the  word,  Prefbyteros,  is  fome- 
times  to  be  underftood  as  meaning  nothing 
more  than  an  aged  man  ;  but  this  mean- 
ing can  be  given  to  it,  only  when  the  con- 
nexion of  the  difcourfe,  where  it  is  ufed, 
makes  it  neceffary  :    otherwife,  it  is,  with 
all  the  Fathers,  an  appropriated  term,  and 
not  ufed  by  any  of  them,  either  before,  or 
after,  Clement,  but  to  denote  an  officer  in 
the  church  of  Chrift.     And,  what  may  be 
worthy  of  fpecial  notice,  it  is  never  ufed 
by  Clement,  relative  to  an  officer  of  the 
church,  to  fignify  meer/y,or  only,  his  being 
"  a  man  in  years."     Why  then  fhould  he 
be  thought  to  ufe  it  in  this,  fenfe,  in  the 

paffage 


458  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

paffage  under  confideration  ?  And,  had  he 
intended  to  convey  the  idea  of  nothing 
more  than  "  an  old  man,"  why  did  he  not 
ufe  the  word  Pre/bytes?  He  might,  with 
equal  eafe,  and  moie  propriety,  have  ufed 
this  word,  in  both  paffages  that  have  been 
"brought  to  view;  and  his  not  doing  it,  plain* 
ly  indicates,  that  he  intended,  in  the  fiift  of 
them,  to  lead  us  into  the  thought,  that,  by 
PrefbyterQSy  hemeant  the  fame  officer  in  the 
church,  he  had  juft  before  called  Bifhop, 
Epijkopos  $  and  in  the  fecond,  to  fignify 
that  he  was  an  "  elderly  perion."  And 
there  might  be  a  fpecial  propriety  in  his 
fpeaking  of  him,  in  this  fecond  paflage, 
as  an  (i  elderly  perfon  j"  as  this  would 
aggravate  his  fault  in  not  taking  better 
care  of  "  the  young  man  that  had  been 
depofited  with  him  as  his  charge." 

It  will  add  weight  to  what  has  been 
offered,  in  defence  of  Clement's  promif-* 
cuoufly  ufing  the  words,  Bifhop  and 
Prefbyter,  in  that  part  of  his  ftory  re- 
lating to  the  Apoftle  John,  we  have  been 
eonfidering,  if  we  compare  his  yfe  of  the 
words  here, with  the  ufe  of  them  in  ftrom. 
lib,  iii.  p.  556,  and  ftrom.  ib.  p,  552.  In 
the  former  of  thefe  pages  he  fays,  "  thofe 
ought  to  be  appointed  Bishops,  who,from 

ruling 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 


459 


ruling  their  own  houfe,  have  been  exer- 
cifed  to  rule  the  whole  church."  In  the 
latter  of  them,  his  words  are  thefe,  "  He 
muft  be  the  hufband  of  one  wife  only, 
whether  he  be  a  Presbyter,  or  Dea- 
con, or  Laic,  if  he  would  ufe  marriage 
without  blame."  Let  it  now  beobferved, 
thefe  directions,  refpe&ing  a  "  Bishop's 
ruling  his  own  houfe,"  and  a  "  Presby- 
ter's having  but  one  wife,"  are  both  ta- 
ken, or  rather  cited,  from  the  Apoftle 
Paul's  firft  epiftle  to  Timothy,  iiid  ch.  2d 
and  4th  v.  where  the  words  are  thefe,  "  A 
Bifhopmuft  be  the  hufband  of  one  wife,"'- 
and  "  one  that  ruleth  well  his  own  houfe.'* 
Now,  that  very  officer  in  the  church,  which 
the  Apoftle  Paul  calls  a  Bishop,  is  called 
by  Clement,  in  one  of  the  above  paffages, 
a  Bishop  *y  and,  in  the  other,  a  Pres- 
byter. He  muft  certainly  mean,  by 
Presbyter,  precifely  the  fame  officer, 
both  he  himfelf,  and  the  Apoftle  Paul, 
meant  by  Bishop  :  or  there  would  be  no 
pertinency  in  his  application  of  thefe  texts. 
This,  I  Ihould  think,  muft  be  fufficient 
to  put  it  beyond  all  reafonable  difpute, 
that  the  word,  Pre(byteros>  in  Clement's 
ftory  of  the  Apoftle  John,  is  ufed  in  its 
appropriated  fenfe,  to  fignify  an  officer 
in  the  church  j  and,  as  this  officer,  who 

is 


460  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

Is  called  a  Presbyter,  is  alfo  called  a 
Bishop,  the  words  muft  be  confidered  as 
promifcuoufly  uied  to  mean  one  and  the 
fame  ecclefiaflical  officer:  fo  the  words 
are  ufed,  in  the  places  we  have  compared 
with  this  i  and  no  better  reafon  can  be 
given  for  their  not  being  fo  ufed  here, 
than  that  of  fervi-ng  an  hypothefis. 

3.  It  is  of  ftill  rqore  important  con- 
fideration,  that  Clement,  in  ftrom.  vii. 
p.  830,  evidently  appears  to  have  had  no 
knowledge  of  more  than  two  orders  of 
officers  in  the  Chriftian  church,  that  of 
Pre/byters,  and  that  of  Deacons.  For, 
when  he  is  purpofely  fpeaking  of  the  fa- 
cred  ecclefiaftical  functions,  he  particu- 
larly mentions  thefe  two,  and  no  more. 
One,  he  confiders  as  fuperior,  calling  it 
beltiotike,  becaufe  intended  and  adapted  to 
"  make  men  better  :"  the  other  he  repre- 
fcnts  as  inferior,  calling  it  uperetike,  be^ 
caufe  defigned  for  a  lower  kind  of  mini- 
ftry.  The  fuperior  office  he  appropriates 
to  Presbyters  ;  the  inferior  one  to 
E)eacons  :  not  giving  the  leaft  hint  of 
any  other,  or  higher  office  in  the  chriftian 
church.  Can  this  be  accounted  for,  if 
he  knew  of  any  order  in  the  church 
higher  than  that,  in  which  Prefbyters  are 

placed  ? 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  461 

placed  ?  Surely,  if  Bifhops  were  officers 
in  the  church  of  a  fuperior  and  higher 
order  than  Prefbyters,  he  would  not  have 
pafled  over  this  order  of  men  i  n  total  filence, 
while  he  is  particular  in  taking  notice  of  the 
two  lower  orders,  that  of  Prefbyters, 
and  that  bf  Deacons.  It  is  obfervable, 
he  thought  it  proper,  even  in  the  very 
paflage  we  are  upon,  to  afcend  to  heavm 
incomtemplation,thathemightbringinthe 
Angels  of  God  as  employed  in  the  two 
kinds  of  miniftryhehad  been  treating  of  ; 
and  yet,  though  Bifhops  were,  in  his 
opinion,  (as  Epifcopalians  would  have  us 
believe)  the  moft  exalted  order  of  church- 
officers  Chrift  had  upon  earth,  he  fays 
not  a  word  about  them,  or  any  fervice 
they  had  to  do  ;  while,  at  the  fame  time* 
he  takes  particular  notice  both  of  Pref- 
byters and  Deacons,  fo  much  below  Bi- 
fhops as  not  (comparatively)  to  deferve 
being  mentioned  at  all.  This  is  truly 
aftoniihing  !  And  Clement  muft  be  voted 
inexcufable,  unlefs  we  fuppofe,  (what  I 
take  to  be  the  certain  truth)  that  with 
him,  Bifhops  and  Prefbyters  were  one  and 
the  fame  order  of  men  in  the  church,  and 
might  properly  be  fpoken  of  under  the 
name,  either  of  Bifhop,  or  Prefby ter.  And 
in  this  view  of  the  matter,  there  is  a  con- 

fiftency 


462  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

fiftency,  propriety,  and  cogency,  in  this 
difcourfe  of  Clement  :  otherwife,  it  is,  to 
fay  the  lead,  ftrange  and  altogether  un- 
accountable*    ! 

IV.  In  the  laft  place,  it  is  further  evi- 
dent, from  what  Clement  has  faid,  in 
ftrom.  vi.  p.  793,  that  he  had  no  notion 
of  more  than  two  orders  of  officers  in 
the  church  of  Chrift  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
of  Bifhops  as  the  firft  and  moft  fuperior 
of  three  orders.  I  have  purpofely 
given  the  reader  the  whole  13th  fe&ion 
of  this  6th  book,  that  he  might  be  able 
to  take  a  complete  view  of  what  he  has 
offered  upon  this  head.  And  if  he  is 
pleafed  to  attend  to  what  is  contained  in 
this  fe£Hon,he  will  find,  that  neitherApof- 
tles,  Prefbyters  Deacons,  or  Laymen,  are 
efteemed,  by  Clement,  excellent  here,  or 
interefted  in  felicity  hereafter,  but  in  pro- 
portion to  their  chriftian  knowledge,  wif- 
dom,  and  goodnefs ;  that  is,  their  being 
more  or  lefs  perfect  gnoftics.  In  illuft- 
ration  of  this,  he  fays,  "  he  is  in  reality  a 
"  Presbyter  in  the  church,  and  he  is 
"  a  true  Deacon,  who  does,  and  teaches, 
"  the  things  of  theLord  :-- -not  account- 
•*  ed  a  righteous  man,  becaufe  a  Prefby- 
"  ter  >  but  becaufe  a  righteous  man  there- 

"  fore 


CLEMENT  df  Alexandria.  463 

"  fore  chofen  into  the  Prefbytery  :  and 
"  though  he  be  not  honored  with  the 
"  first  seat  *  on  earth,  yet  (hall  here- 
"  after  fit  down  on  the  twenty-four 
"  thrones,  judging  the  people."  It  is 
at  iirft  fight  obvious,  that  Clement  here 
makes  mention  of  two  orders  only  in 
the  church,  that  of  Presbyters,  and  that 
or  Deacons.  And  it  is  equally  evident, 
that  the  nrft  feat,  he  fpeaks  of,  relates  to 
the  Presbytery,  and  is  the  place  of  one* 
who  is  a  confiituent  member,  in  common 
with  the  other  Prefbyters,  of  thisfenate,  o£ 
ecclefiafticai  body.  But,  what  does  he 
mean  by  this  fir ji feat  ?  One,  not  Waited 
in  his  mind,  would  eafily  and  naturally 
Ooo  bs 

*  A  frie:id  of  mine,  well  {killed  in  the  Greek,  and  who  has 
particularly  acquainted  himfelf  with  the  writings  of  this 
Clement,  is  clearly  of  the  mind,  that  the  protoka- 
t  h  e  d  r  1  a  ,  he  here  fpeaks  of,  does  not  mean  the  first 

CHAIR,    SEAT,  or    PLACE   V\   the   PRESBYTERY,    but 

the  first  session  in  the  church  here  on  earth,  as 
well  as  in  heaven.  He  had  been  faying,  in  the  imme- 
diately preceding  words,  a  man's  being  ft  truly 
righteous"  was  the  reafon,  in  God's  account,  why  he  was 
"  chofen  i.ito  the  Frelbytery"  ;  and  though  he  mould  not 
be  honored,  here  on  earth,  with  the  protokathedria, 
the  first  session,  he  mould  hereafter  fet  dowa 
on  the  twenty-four  thrones,"  the  hi  gkf.st  _  ad- 
v  a  n  c  e  M  e  n  t  of  the  Saints  in  glory.  He  is  ra- 
ther more  explicit,  up£>n  this  head,  a  little  onwards,  in  tnis 
fame  fe:tion  ;  where,  fpeaking  of  the  "progressions 
of  thofe  who  have  lived,  according  to  the  gofpcl,  in  the 
perfection   of  righteoufnefs,  he  fays,  "  thefe  men,  being 

takeu 


464  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

be  led  t  )  underftand,  by  it,  the  feat  of  the 
Head-Prefbyter,  x>r  Pixfes  of  the  Prfrfby- 
tery.  }t  cannot  reafonably  be  thought, 
that  Clement  meant  by  it  a  feat  that  was- 
proper,  not  to  a  conftituent  member  of 
the  Prefbyterate,  but  to  an  officer  in  the 
church  of  another  order,  diftinct  from, 
and  fuperior  to,  that  of  Prefoyters.  Thrs 
would  be  to  make  him  fpeak  very  impro- 
perly. For  \\\z  firft  feat  in  a  Prefbytery 
obvioufly  and  certainly  imports  a  parity 
oteffhitidt powers iti  the  perfons  ih^tcon- 
ilitute  'this  body  ;  though  one  of  them 
may,  in  fome  refpecls,  for  prudential' rea- 
fons,  have  the  precedency,  or  fuperiority, 
Jo  as  to  be  feated  in  the  jfry?  chair. 

This 


taken  up  into  the  clouds,  ihall  first  minHrer  as  Df.a- 
cossj  then  be  admitted  to  a  rank  in  the  Pres- 
bytery ;  which  means  the  fame  thing  with  what  he  had, 
a  little  before,  fpoken  of  as  "  being  honored  with  the 

PROTOKATHKDRI  A,  the  FIRST  Or  HIGHEST  SES- 
SION in  the  church,  in  the  future  ftate  of  glory."  1  fee 
not  but  this  criticifm  of  my  friend  is  juli  :  it  certainly 
"falls  in  with  tire  method  of  reafoning,  Clement  has  gone 
into,  throughout  this  whole  paragraph.  However,  1  was 
.not  willing  to  depart  from  that  (enfc  of  the  word,  in  which 
it  is  univerlally  taken  (fo  far  as  my  knowledge  extends)  by 
opifcopa!  writers,  hi  this  fenfe  I  have  conf:dered  it  ; 
and  offered  that  upon  it  which  is, as  I  imagine,  too  force- 
able  to  be  fet  afide.  The  argument  is  much  itrongerupon 
the  interpretation  of  my  friend.  If  this  exhibits  the  truth, 
it  is  put  beyond  all-poffible  difpute,  that  Clement  knew  of 
no  higher  order  in  the  church  than  that  of  Presby* 
ters, 


<u 


a 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  465 

This  will  appear  in  a  yet  fuller  light, 
if  we  examine  what  Clement  has  offered, 
in  this  fame  ie:tion,  upon  the  progreffi- 
ons  in  the  church  here,  and  in  glory  here- 
after. "  Says  he,  '}  Thefe  progreffions 
"  in  the  church  here,  of  Bilhops,  Pref- 
'!  byters,  Deacons,  I  take  to  be  imitations 
i(  of  the  angelical  glory,  and  of  that  dif- 
penfation,  which  the  fcriptures  tell  us, 
they  look  for,  who,  following  the  fteps 
of  the  Apoftles,  have  lived,  according 
to  the  gofpel,  in  the  perfection  of  righ- 
66  teoufneis  :  thefe  men,  being  taken  up 
"  into  the  clouds,  (hall  firfi  minifterss 
M  Deacons,  then  be  admitted  to  a  rank 
"  in  the  Prefbytery  according  to  the  pro- 
"  ceflion  of  glory,  (for  one  glory  differ- 
"  eth  from  another)  until  they  grow  up 
"  to  a  perfe£t  man." 

This  pafTage,  I  am  fenfible,  Epifcopa- 
lians  bring  as  the  ftrongeft  teftimony,from 
Clement,  in  favor  of  a  threefold  order  in 
the  church,  under  the  fpecified  names  of 
Bifliops,  Prelbyters,  and  Deacons.  But 
fuch  a  con(lru6tion  of  the  words  will  not 
at  all  confift,  either  with  the  paffage  it- 
felf,  or  what  he  has  elfewhere  faid  upon 
this  fame  fubject.    For,  let  it  be  obferved, 

Hs 


466  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria; 

He   fpeaks  of  thefe  "  progreffions,  as 
u  imitations  of  the  angelic  glory."    Upon 
which    Sir  Peter  King,  in  his  "  enquiry 
into    the    confti  union,   of   the    primitive, 
church,"  p.  ioo,  makes  the  following  re- 
mark, in  fupportof  the  opinion,  that  only 
two  ecclefiaiiical  orders,  viz.  Bifhops  and 
Deacons,  or  Prefbyteis  and  Deacons,  are 
noticed  by  Clement,  namely,  that  "  thefe 
orders  are  hece  refembled  by  the  angelic 
orders.     Now,  the  fcripture  mentions  but 
two  orders,  viz.  Arch-Angels  and  Angela 
the  Arch-Angels  prefiding  over  the  An- 
gels, and  the  Angels  obeying,  and  attend- 
ing on  the  Arch- Angels.      According  to 
this  refemblance,  therefore,  there  mull;  be 
b:jt  two  ecclefiafticai  orders  in  thechurch, 
which  arc  Bifhops  orPrefbyters  prefiding 
and  governing,  with  the  Deacons  attend- 
ing and  obeying."     This  pailage  has  often 
been  quoted  from  Sir  Peter,  as  carrying 
conviction  with  it.     But  it  does  not  ap- 
pear to  me,  that  Clement  here  intended  to 
iuggeft,  that  there  were  no  more  than  two 
orders  of  Angels,  or  that  he  at  all  made 
this  thought  the  ground  of  the  «.J  imita- 
tion of  the  angelical  glory,"  he  fpeaks  of. 
You  will  then  afk,  what  does  he  ground 
it  upon  8  This  maybe  readily  known  by 
comparing  his  words  here,  with  what  he 

favs 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  467 

fays  in  ftrom.  vii.  p.  830  :  where,  having 
treated  of  the  facred  functions  in  two 
orders  only  ;  the  one  fuperior,  which  he 
appropriates  to  Prefbyters  ;  the  other  in- 
ferior, which  he  makes  proper  toDeacons, 
he  then  adds,  that  by  both  these  mi- 
nistries the  Angels  ferve  God  in  the 
difpenfation  of  the  affairs  of  this  earth." 
Having,  in  this  place,  fpoken  of  the  An- 
gels, as  employed  in  two  kinds  of  mi- 
niftry, the  one  analogous  to  that  of  Pref- 
byters, the  other  to  that  of  Deacons,  it 
fhould  feem  obvious  and  natural,  when 
he  fpcaks,  in  the  paffage  under  confidera- 
tion,  of  the  "  progrefllons  in  the  church, 
as  imitations  of  the  angelical  glory,"  toun- 
derftand  by  thefe  progrefjions,  the  paffing 
from  the  lovyer  miniftry  in  the  church, 
that  of  Deacons,  to  the  higheft  which  is 
a  rank  among  Prefbyters.  And  let  it  be 
remembered  here,  it  is  the  glory  of  the  An- 
gels in  Heaven  to  ferve  God  in  mining-ring 
to  our  earth;  and  their  progreffion  in  glo- 
ry, 10  far  as  it  refpeds  their  miniftry  in 
the  two  kinds  particularly  mentioned  by 
Clement,  will  be  higher  or  lower  accord- 
ing to  the  higher  or  lower  nature  of  the 
two  ministries  in  which  they  ferve 
God  in  the  difpenfation  of  the  things  of 
this  earth.     And,  in  this  view,  the  "  pro- 

greffions 


468  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

greffions  in  the  church"are  "  imitation s  of 
the  evangelical  glory."     And  thus  it  is  ex- 
plained even  by  Clement  himfelf.  For,  fays 
he,thofe,  who  "  treading  in  the  ftepsof  the 
Apoflles, €t  havelived  in  evangelical  perfec- 
tion of"righteoufnefs,  being  taken  up  into 
the  "clouds,  fhall/?r/?  minifteras  Deacons, 
"  then  be  admitted  to  a  rank  /tz/^Presby- 
"  tery,  according  to  the  proceffion  in 
"  glory."      Obferve,  their  jirfl  advance- 
ment is  their  miniflring  as  Deacons  j  their 
next  and  highejl  proceffion  is  their  being 
admitted  into  ^Presbyterate  :  though 
it  fhould  be  noticed  here,  there  is  a  pro- 
greflion  in  degree  even  in  thePrefbyterate. 
For   Clement,  in  this   very  fedtion,   has 
told  us  of  a  first   seat  in  the  Prefby- 
tery ;  which,  if  filled  with  a  Praefes,  or 
Head-Prefbyter,  under  the  name  of  Bi- 
ihop,  will  exa&Iy  anfvver  the  progreffions 
ofBifhops,  Prefbyters,  Deacons  here  fpo- 
ken  of  :   nor  can  they  be  anfwered  any 
other  way,  in  confiftency  with  Clement's 
difcourfe  upon  this  fubjeft,  wherever  he 
treats  upon  it.    He  fpeaks  in  this  feclion, 
and  very  particularly  in  ftrom.  vii.p.  830, 
of  the  two  different  orders  of  church-of- 
ficers, that  of  Prefbyters,  and  that  ofDea- 
cons,  and  mentions  no  more.      Bifliops 
therefore,  with  him,  could  not  be  officers 

in 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  469 

in  the  church  of  an  order  fuperior  to  that 
of  Prefbyters  ;  though  they  might  be  of- 
ficers having  a  precedency,  a  fuperiority, 
in  degree:  as  the  Praifes  of  a  Prefbyte- 
ry,  though  of  the  fame  order,  is  yet  in 
degree  above  the  reft.  And  Clement  has 
moft  obvioufly  led  us  to  conceive  of  Bi~ 
fhopsin  this  light,  that  is,  as  nothing  more 
than  the  firft,  the  chief,  the  higheft,  in 
degree  among  the  members  that  consti- 
tute what  he  calls  the  Prefbytery.  And, 
as  he  no  where  mentions  any  higher 
ccclefiaftical  lenate,  or  body  of  men,  or 
any  higher  order  of  officers  in  the  Chrif- 
tian  church,we  are  unavoidably  conftrain- 
ed  to  understand,  by  his  Bifhop,  the  Pne- 
fes,  Chairman,  or  he  that  occupies  the 
firft  feat  in  the  Prefbytery. 

I  shall  only  add,  the  works  of  Cle- 
ment we  have  extrafred  from  are  the  lafl 
extant,  within  the  fecond  century  :  nor 
did  he  write  thefe,  until  nearly  the  end  of 
it.  Dodwell  fays,  between  the  beginning  of 
the  year  193,  and  the  end  of  the  year 
195.  Du-pin  places  this  Clement  the 
firft  among  the  Fathers  of  the  third  cen- 
tury. And  yet,  he  cannot  be  brought  as 
a  witness,  in  favor  of  the  grand  facts 
pleaded  for  by  Epifcopalians.      Yea,  in 

thjp 


47°  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria 

the  times  after  him,  when  there  was  a 
diftinclion  in  fact  between  Bifhops  and 
Prefbyters,  it  is  no  eafy  matter  to  point 
out  precifely  wherein  it  confided.  It  is 
with  me,  part:  all  doubt,  that  the  idea  of 
a  Bifhop,  2s  diftinguifhed  from  a  Preiby- 
ter,  continually  varied  as  corruption  in- 
creafed,  until,  by  degrees,  there  was  pla- 
ced over  the  church  an  universal  Bi- 
shop, under  the  name    of  the  Pope   of 

Rome. But  Imuft  not  go  beyond  the. 

times  to  which  this  work  is  confined. 

CONCLUSION. 

I  HAVE  now*  at  the  expence  of  con- 
siderable time  and  pains,  brought  to  view, 
and  confidered,  according  to  the  plan  laid 
down  at  firft,  all  that  is  faid,  by  all  the 
genuine  writers,  until  towards  the  going 
out  of  thefecond  century,  (fo  far  as  their 
writings,  either  in  whole,  or  in  part,  have 
reached  us)  relative  to  Epifcopacy.  And, 
upon  a  review  of  what  has  been  offered, 
I  cannot  but  exprefs  my  furprife  at  the 
affurance,  with  which  fome  prelatical 
authors  affirm  it  to  be  a  fact,  univer- 
sally witneffed  to,  even  from  the  ear- 
liest ages,  that  Bifhops  were  officers 
in  the  church  of  an  order  diftinct  from, 

and 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  47  ? 

and  fuperior  tOjPrefbyters,in  whom  were 
lodged  the  exclufive  powers  of  govern- 
ment, and  ordination.  Says  one  of 
thefe  writers,  *  "  The  Chriftian  church, 
in  the  ages  next  fucceeding  the  Apoftles, 
afferts  with  one  univsrfal  confent,  the  uni* 
verfal  derivation  of  a  fuperior  order  of  cc- 
clefiafiic  officers  from  the  Apoftles  topre- 
fide  over  the  church/'  And  again,  -f  "  If 
any  credit  may  be  given,  either  to  thofe 
writers  that  lived  in  the  apoftolic  age,  or 
thole  who  immediately  fucceeded  them, 
it  is  evident*  that  Epifcopacy  is  nothing* 
elfe  but  only  the  apoftolical  fuperiority 
derived  from  the  hands  of  the  Apoftles, 
in  a  continued  fucceffion  from  generation 
to  generation."  Says  another  of  thefe 
writers,  J  H  The  (landing  maxim  of  the 
epifcopal  fcheme  [namely,  that  ordaining 
power  is  appropriated  to  Bifhops,  as  aa 
orderin  the  church  fuperior toPrefbyters] 
has  the  earlieft  records  of  the  church  to 
fupport  it ;  and  there  was  fcarce  any  ar- 
ticle of  faith  more  firmly  believed."  And 
again,  §  "  We  have  the  fame  evidence, 
that  Epifcopacy  (that  is,  Bifhops  as 
P  p  p  diftina 

*  Dr.  Scot's  Chriftian  Life,  vol.  il,  p.  406* 

t   P.  421. 
t  The  invalidity  of  the  diflenting  Miniftry,"  in  anfwer  %6 
a  fermon  of  Mr.  Pierce's,  p.  23, 
S  P.  3- 


472  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria 

cliftinfl  from,  and  Superior  to,  Prefbyters) 
was  the  government  of  the  primitive 
church,  in  the  pureft  ages  of  Christi- 
anity, that  we  have  for  the  canon  of 
scrlpt&jle'J'  Another  author  jftill  has 
rhefe  words, -f  "The  Apoftks  leaving  the 

power  Of  ORDAINING  PRESBYTERS  inthfc" 

bands  of  fixed  Bishops,  being  a  matter 
offaCt  palled  many  years  ago,  the  only  me- 
thod by  which  we  can  come  to  the  know- 
ledge of  it  is,  the*teftimoyy  of  writers, who 
lived  in  the  apoftolical  and  following 
agC*."  And  this  teffimo^y  he  puts 
vjpon  the  fame  foot  with  that  w3  have 
for  the  facred  fcriptur  es. 

Can  it  be  fuppofed,  that  thefe  writers 
Iiad  acquainted  themfelves  with  the  records 
of  the  ages  that  next  fucceeded  the  Apof- 
t4es  ?  Had  this  been  the  cafe,  it  fhouldfeem 
impoflible,  however  biased  in  their  minds* 
that  they  could  have  delivered  their  fen- 
timents  in  language  fo  replete  with  pofi- 
tive  affurance.  Surely,  they  would  not 
have  put  the  teftimonres  in  favor  of  Epif- 
copacy,  upon  a  par  with  the  teftimomesr 
in  proof  of  the  authority  of  the  facred' 
books  of  fcripture.  This  muft  have: 
been  the- effect,,  not  only  of  deeply  root- 
ed  prejudice,,  but  of  an  hearfay-know- 

ledge 

*  [*  Brief,  defence  of  epifcopal  ordination,"  p.  9* 


CLEMENT  of  Alexandria.  473 

ledge  only  of  the  mod  ancient  and  truly 
primitive  writings.  It  cannot  eaiily  be 
accounted  for  in  any  other  way. 

As  the   reader  has  had   laid  before  him 
a  full  view  of  what  is  faid,  upon  the  doc- 
trine of  Epifcopacy,  from  the  firft  hun- 
dred and  ninety  years,  fo  far  as  it  can  be 
collec-ted  from  the  extant  writings  of  the 
Fathers   within   this  period,   or  the  re- 
maining fragments  of  their  writings,  he 
may,  from  ocular  infpefrion,  make  a  fa- 
tisfaftory  judgment  in    relation   to  this 
Epifcopacy.      Only,  he   fhould    keep  in 
$iind  the    grand    point   in    queftion, 
whichis,  what  is  thetruthof  fact,  in  the 
records  of  the  ages  next  to  the  Apoftles, 
with  refpeel  to  the  order,  and  office- 
power,  of  Bifhops  ?    For  the  difpute  is 
not  about  the   name  of  Epifcopacy,  but 
the    thing   intended   by  it.      Prelatifts 
fay,  theFACT  univerfally  handed  down  is, 
that  Bifhops  are  an  order  of  officers  in 
the  church  diftinft  from,  and  fuperior  to, 
Prefbyters  -,  'and  that  the  powers  of  go- 
vernment, ordination,  and  confir- 
mation, are  appropriated  to  them  :  in- 
fomu'eh,  that  Prefbyters  no  more  exerci- 
fed  thefe  powers,  than  Deacons  baptifed, 
or  adminiftred  the  Lord's  fupper.    Let  the 
reader  have  this  conftantly  in  his  view,  as 
it  may  reafonably  be  expedted  he  Ihoukl, 


474  CLEMENT  of  Alexandria. 

while  he  confiders  the  tefti  monies  that 
have  been  produced  ;  and  I  may  venture 
to  fay,  with  the  higheft  ailurance,  that  he 
will  be  in  no  danger  of  calling  in  ques- 
tion the  authority  of  the  new-teftament- 
books,  for  want  of  teftimonies  in  their 
behalf,  though  he  fhould  utterly  rejedl 
Episcopacy,  in  the  impleaded  fenfe,  as  , 
having  no  fupport,  either  in  point  of 
eight,  or  practice,  from  any  thing  he 
may  have  met  with  in  the  writers  within 
the  two  firft  ages  of  the  Chriftian  church. 
He  is  accordingly  appealed  tc,  and  let 
him  be  judge  ;  taking  care  to  a£t  his 
part,  in  this  character,  upon  a  fair,  im- 
partial, and  thorough  examination  of  the 
evidence  that  has  been  helJ  cut  to  his  view, 

FINIS. 


The  Reader  is  deftred  to  correct  the  following  Errata. 

PAG£  5,  line  22,  read  fubliitute  ;  p.  9,  1.  9,  r.  from  ;  p. 
34, 1/6,  r.  fays  ;  p.  3S,  1.  i,  isarg,  r.  omni  ;  p.  42,  hft  1, 
r.Epifcopi  ;p.  68,  larl  1,  r,  makes ;  p.  82,1.  18,  r.  iuipofture  ; 
p.  90, 1.  19,  r.  Exorcifls  ;  p.  92,  bit  1.  rruug.  r.  Interpolators  ; 
p,  126,  1.  14,  a£.  plead  r.  from  ;  p.  144,  r.  i-.  viho  M  L  h  N  ;- 
p.  217,1.  24,  r.  he;  p,  22?,  1.  ;,marg.  r.  propter  ;  p.^  34, 1, 
14,  af.  being  dele  as ;  p.  24^,  1.  14,  r.  epililes  ;  p.  2  $6^1.  17, 
r.  exhort ;  p.  334,  r.  adepts;  p.  335,1.  17,  r.  change  ; 
p.  34^,  1.  2,  r.  icholaftical  j  p.  369, 1.  5.  r.  elegance  ;  1.  II, 
r.  Amojycus;  p.  381, 1.  21,  r,  him  ;  p.  383, 1.  13,  r.  dcluli- 
<ms  ;  p,  390, 1.  24,  r.Epipharjus;p.  392, 1.  6,  r.  mocicftly  ;  p. 
399,1.  4,  mar£.  r.  ecdetns,  and  in  hit  1.  r.  Magifterii  ;p. 
403, 1.  4,marg.  r.  onfe'iionis  Uimore  ;  p.  407,  laftl.  r.apof- 
tolicoi  ;  p.  418,  1.  8,  r.  eafker  ;  p.  433,  lift  1.  r.  Caracalla,  p, 
439. 1-  6,  r.  heretic^;  p,  140, 1.  9,  r,  ftromatcus, 


GENERAL    CONTENTS. 

AFter  theTitle-  Page,  follows  thepreface,  confiftingof  P.  10 
INTRODUCTION,  of  14 

The  ancient  Waters  ate introduced  at  15 

1  t>  ARNAKAS,  the  Hrit.  Shewed  not  to  be  the  fcrip- 

-*-*      tare  Barnabas,  from  i£ 

In  his  epiftle  no  mention   of  Bifhops  or    Prefbyters.       z$ 

2  "TMONYSIUS,   the  Areopagite  :    the  writings, 

^    called  his,  proved  not  genuine.  27,&c» 

3  TTERMAS,  and  his  writings ;  his  paftor,  with  the 
-*-■*-    judgment   of  the  ancients   and  moderns  ;    it 

makes  Bilhops  and  Prefbyters  one  and  the  fame  order 

of  church  officers.  36,  &c. 

4  /^LEMKNT  of  Rome's  character  and  writings, 

^     with  teftimonies  of  them,   from  6j 

His  epiftle  to  the  Corinthians  genuine,  75,  &c 

The  occalion  of  his  writing  it.    '  77 

The  time  of  his  writing  it.  79- 

Clement's  doubtful  writing.  82 

Pieces  fpurious  afcribed  to  him,  .  82 

The  constitutions,  called  apoftolic,  fpurious.  84,  &c. 

Canons,  called  apoftolical,  not  genuine.  92,  &c. 

The  recognitions  allowed  fpurious.  102 

Paffages  from  Clement's  firft  epiftle  admitted  ;  and  proofs 
from  him, that  Bifhops  and  Preibyters  are  the  fame.  103  &c. 

5  pOLYCARP, -his  character,   and  his  writings, 

A      with  teftimonies  from  them,  &c,  1 55 
He  not  a  Bifhop  fuperior  to  Preibyters ;  nor  owning 

.  fuch  an  one.  157 

His  death.                                                          •  1 69 

Epiftlcs  mentioned  as  his,  not  extant.  170 

His  epiftle  to  the  church  at  Philippic  ib. 

The  infcription  of  it.  171 

Paffages  from  it.  172,  &c* 

Remarks  on  thofe  paifages.  1 75,  &c. 

No  Bifhop  diitinct  from  Prefbyter  in  him,  176 

6  TGNATlUS's  character,  writings,  &c.  187 
A  He  a  Bifhop,  or  Paftor,  or  Prelbyter,  191 

The  manner  and  circumftances  of  his  death.  192 

His  writings,  epiftolical.  194 

The  editions  of  them.  19& 

Hh  epiftles,  their  being  his  queftioned.  198,  &c. 

Writers  taking  no  notice  of  them.  203,  &c. 

Writers  fuppofed  to  refer  to  them  confidered.  214,  &c. 
His  epiftle  to  Romans  not  ferving  the  Epifcopalians.      233 

lgnatian  epiftles,  if  not  fpurious,  yet  corrrupt.  24^ 


GENERAL    CONTENTS. 

Fraudulent  and  impudent  treatment  of  Ignatius.  25c? 

True  fent  jments  of  Ignatius  not  given  us  under  his  name.  253 

Teftimonies  from  Ignatius.  270 

Remarks  on  thofeteftimonies.  HisBifhopsnotdiocefan.  289 

Of  the  peculiar  epifcopal  powers,   government,  ordination, 

andconrirmation,nekherof-\vhicharefaidby  Ignatius  to 

belong  toBifhopsin  diftinction  from  Prelbyters.  303,  &c, 

HisBifhops,upon  the  whole,parochial,  and  what  he  fays  about 

them  not  fo  favorable  to  the  epifcopal,asPrefby  ters  caufe  317 

7  O  API  AS  :   book  faid  to  be  wrote  by  him.  319 
A  J    His  character.                                                 320,  &c, 

.  No  Bifliop  betides  an  Elder  in  him.  32 1 

8  .QUADRATUS  ;   his  character,  and  only  writ- 

V     ing.  323,  324 

9  A  RISTIDES  ;  his  character,  and  apology.  32$ 

io     A  GRIPPA,  firnamed  Caftor,  his  character,  326 

■**»    He  wrote  one  book  ;  no  remains  of  it.   326,  327 

11  UEGESIPPUS,fuppofedaconvertfromJudaifm.  $28 
•*•  *  His  hiftory  :  only  fragments  of  it  remain,      ib. 

The  hiftory  of  the  Jevvifh  wars  not  his.  329 

Extracts  from  a  fragment  of  his,  330 

Nothing  in  him  in  proof  of  the  fact  in  difpute,  331,  &c. 

12  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  333 
_  J     Learned  :  an  adept  in  philofophy,  •     334 

His  conversion.  33c 

His  apologies  for  chriftians.  337 
Crefcens,  the  cynic,  his  enemy,  procuring  his  death.     341 

Juftin's  character.  342' 

His  writings.  343,  &c. 

His  habit.  ib. 

His  genuine  works,  and  loft.  344 

Works,  fuppofititious.  34c 

From  him  no  evidence  for  Epifcopaliar^.  3^4 

A  collection  of  Fathers  named.  357 

J3  TV/TELITO,  of  Sartfis,  an  Eunuch,  his  genius. 

±xx     works,  &c.  358 

14  'TpATIAN.  36* 

15  ^THENAGORAS,  364 

16  TTERMIAS.  .        367 

17  ^HEOPHILUS.  ^  ib. 


*JB2 


GENERAL    CONTENTS. 

18  A  POLLiNARIUS,  or  Apollinaris.  371 

19  "T\  ION  YSIUS  of  Corinth.  372 

20  piNYTUS.  374 

21  pHILIPPUS  and  Modeftus.  375 

22  -*• 

23  A/fUSANUS.  ib. 

24  T3ARDESANES.  ib. 

PISTLE  of  the  churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons.  _  376 
'N.  B.  FromMelito  to  this  epiftle,there  is  nothing  in  the 
authors  mentioned  relative  to  the  Epifcopalian  controverfy. 

26  TREN^EUS,  his  chara&er,  writings,  &c.               '  379 
-■■     His  acquaintance  with  Polycarp,  and  the  fay- 

ings  of  thofe  who  converfed  with  the  Apoftles.    380,381 

Chofen  BHhop,  or  prime  Prefbyter.  382 

His  writing  to  two  perverting  Prefbyters.  383 

Eafter  controverfy  revived.  ib, 

Irenaeus  anfwering  to. his  name.  38$ 
His  praifes.                                                              3^6,  395 

His  writings.  3^7 

His  creed.                                                    J  392 

His  book,  againft  herefies,  when  wrote,— his  death.  397 

Teftimonies  from  him.  398 

Obfervations  on  thofe  teftimonies.  409 
No  proof  of  Epifco  pal  claims  to  be  found  in  him, 

but  the  contrary.                                                 4ir>  &0, 

27  "C*  LEVEN  Fathers  mentioning    nothing  of  the 

*-*     point  in  difpute.   .  427 

28  CERAPION,  a  fragment  from  him.  429 

29  pOLYCRATES,  a  fragment  of  his.  43° 
-*•       Remarks  upon  thefe  fragments.  ib. 

30  /ELEMENT  of  Alexandria,  his  character,  &c.  433 
^     His. loft  writings.  437 

Spurious  writings.  439 
Extant  genuine  writings.     A  general  abftraft  of  them.  441 
He  is  mentioned  with  honor  both  by  the  ancients  and  mo- 
derns. 442 Teftimonies  from  Clement.^  445 

Remarks  upon  thefe  teftimonies,in  which  it  is  (hewn, 
v  that  he  knew  of  no  diftinCtion  between  the  order  of 

Bifhops  and  Prefbyters.  453, Conclufion.  47a 


*y 


u»    ■•      * 


i 


1 


